Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 02 Oct 2008 05:54:32 -0700 | From | Mike Travis <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/31] cpumask: Documentation |
| |
Rusty Russell wrote: > On Wednesday 01 October 2008 19:13:25 Ingo Molnar wrote: >> that looks very sane to me. > > Thanks, it's reasonably nice. The task of hitting all those cpumask_t users > is big, and I don't think we can do it in one hit. > >> one small request: >>> I'll commit these to my quilt series today. >> IMHO, an infrastructure change of this magnitude should absolutely be >> done via the Git space. This needs a ton of testing and needs bisection, >> a real Git track record, etc. > > Not yet. Committing untested patches into git is the enemy of bisection; if > one of my patches breaks an architecture, they lose the ability to bisect > until its fixed. If it's a series of patches, we can go back and fix it. > > Now, once it's been tested a little, it's better for you to git-ize it and > I'll send you patches instead. But I want some more people banging on it, > and a run through linux-next first... > > If Mike's happy to work on these as a basis, we should be able to get there > soon; the patches are sitting in my tree at http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/kernel/ > (see rr-latest symlink).
Absolutely! I may have my own concerns and preferences but the end goal is far more important. I'll take a look at it today. [My only other pressing matter is convincing Ingo to accept the SCIR driver (or tell me how I need to change it so it is acceptable), so my management is happy... ;-)]
> > Thanks, > Rusty. > PS. To emphasize, I haven't actually *booted* this kernel. My test machines > are still in transit as I move (and ADSL not connected yet... Grr...)
Since our approaches are not different in concept, I can assure you that it works... ;-) And as Ingo and others have noted, the infrastructure is easy to verify, it's the allocation of the temporary cpumasks that will be more difficult to test.
Cheers, Mike
| |