Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:57:12 +0200 | From | Eric Dumazet <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/2] ufd v1 - unsequential O(1) fdmap core |
| |
Ingo Molnar a écrit : > * Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote: > >>> For example, the recent futex.c changes you did in commit 34f01cc1 >>> are, and unfortunately there's no better word i can find: plain >>> disgusting. You apparently have plopped the 'fshared' code into the >>> existing logic via conditionals and have blown up the complexity of >>> the functions for no good reason - instead of neatly separating them >>> out. You have added _33_ (thirty-three!) new 'if' branches to >>> futex.c! The feature you introduced is nice and useful, but for >>> heaven's sake please work on cleanliness of your code some more and >>> undo that colossal damage ... preferably before working on other >>> areas of the kernel. >> This code took the normal path for inclusion and discussion. If you >> find it so horrible, you should complained before. Fact is that you >> Acked it :) > > yes, of course, i still think it's a good and nice patch, all things > considered =B-) > >> If you wanted to make a joke, I find it quite misplaced. > > no, i just wanted to make a demonstration that one can be pretty nasty > in on-lkml replies while being technically correct :-) I think you went > a bit overboard in your replies to Davide. Lets move this back into > constructive channels, ok? :)
No problem Ingo. I am sorry you and Davide took my remarks so badly. I tried to be constructive.
You know this stuff got my interest, since I even tested your file open-many-fd benchmark :)
I have some machines around with 1.000.000 file descriptors opened by one process. I even had to change NR_OPEN (1024*1024 was too small for me :) )
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |