Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 03 May 2011 10:59:45 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/2] x86, x2apic: minimize IPI register writes using cluster groups v4 |
| |
On 05/03/2011 10:31 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 05/02/2011 07:05 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> ... >>>> >>>> Ingo, would it be fine to make apic->init() either _before_ this series or >>>> on top of them (because if I introduce it inside this particular patch it >>>> would contain some unrelated code snippets such as .init = NULL for all apics >>>> declaration). >>> >>> Of course it should be a separate patch - even this patch looks a bit large - >>> any way to split it up further? >> >> Well, for this particular path the only minimum is used, so i fear there is no >> way to split it, probably I could drop some 'cleanup' bits from it and make it >> a separate one. Gimme some time. > > Well, first try to do *all* preparatory and cleanup changes that have low > regression risk.
OK
> > *Then* keep the most dangerous part to the end of it - so that it's easily > reverted, should the need arise. Preferably the dangerous part should be much > smaller than: > > 3 files changed, 136 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-) > > And no, it is not at all true that there is 'no way' to split the patch up any > further: you could certainly add the data structures, init methods and such > support code (which is low regression risk) in a separate patch than the > changes that modify the existing x2apic_send_IPI_mask_allbutself() function and > such.
OK
> > Also, the loop body in the new __x2apic_send_IPI_mask() function could > certainly be split out into a helper inline, making the code flow clearer.
OK, will try so, thanks Ingo!
> > Thanks, > > Ingo
-- Thanks, Cyrill
| |