Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:25:19 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Memory controller remove control_type feature |
| |
Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Balbir Singh wrote: >> Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:23:58 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Based on the discussion at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/20/383, it was >>>> felt that control_type might not be a good thing to implement right away. >>>> We can add this flexibility at a later point when required. > > Not studied closely, but your patch looks both too much and too > little to me, Balbir. > > Too much in that it appears to bundle in some significant little > locking changes without any mention in the commment. >
I can create and send across a new changelog, but what it does is make the check for !pc under the page_group lock (lock_page_group()). I sent out a pointer to the URL of our discussion. Yes, I should have been more willing to write a more detailed changelog.
> Too little in that it leaves behind lots of junk relating to the > different control_types: the enums, the different kinds of call > that needn't now be different, no change to the various callsites. > Needs more cleanup, I'd say. Of course, that could be yet another > separate patch. >
Yes, my dilemma, that still remains (Andrew very aptly noted) is that we have a bunch of patches adding in the feature and then a patch removing it. I have noted your point, which is correct about cleaning up unused parameters.
>>> Gee the memory controller patchset is turning into a mess. > > A mess indeed. > >> Yes, the patchset has expanded and we have several useful bug fixes and >> cleanups and some new features. > > Hah, a career in politics beckons ;) > >>> Hopefully it'll look a bit better once I do a big patch-folding but we >>> still have patches interesecting everywhere and now we have patches which >>> add a feature and later ones which take it away again. >>> >> I think folding will help. I understand your concern w.r.t getting the >> correct set of patches with a good changelog. >> >>> But I don't think it's worth the time and risk of a huge >>> rip-up-and-refactor. >>> >> I agree, given the proximity of the new merge window for 2.6.25. We >> could review the patches after folding them and see how to consolidate >> further in case the patches continue to look messy. > > Personally, I think it could benefit a lot from a rip-up-and-refactor. > But if we're rushing headlong for 2.6.25, yes, I agree it's too late. > And I'm afraid it's not something I can volunteer for at this time. > > Hugh
I want to spend as much time as possible testing the memory controller.
-- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL
| |