Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Aug 2013 19:01:32 -0700 | From | Kent Overstreet <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] idr: Use this_cpu_ptr() for percpu_ida |
| |
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 02:29:56PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:19:06 -0700 "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 14:32 +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > > > > > One thing that was bugging me - I was never able to figure out for sure > > > > if smp_processor_id() returns a number in the range [0, nr_cpu_ids), at > > > > least I couldn't find where it was documented - could you tell me if > > > > that's true? > > > > > > I always assumed that it was in the range 0 ... nr_cpu_ids - 1 and that is > > > the assumption under which the kernel code was written. Things would break > > > horribly if smp_process_id would return nr_cpu_ids or higher. > > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > Just a heads up that I've put Kent's standalone percpu-ida patch (with > > Christoph's recommend changes) into target-pending/for-next here: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/nab/target-pending.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=47bd524a5b3eb6429b058b8b562b45329ab2c9e7 > > > > I've got a number of target patches that depend on this code for v3.12, > > and a delay on this particular piece would be painful to endure.. > > > > Sooo, please yell loudly if there is an objection to percpu-ida merge as > > a completely standalone item, that does not effect any existing ida > > code. > > Was hoping that Tejun had time. I'll take a look...
I think Tejun and I might be at a bit of an impasse with the ida rewrite itself, but I don't think there were any outstanding objections to the percpu ida code itself - and this is a standalone version.
I was meaning to ask you Andrew, if you could take a look at the ida discussion and lend your opinion - I don't think there's any _specific_ technical objections left to my ida code, and it's now on a more philisophical "complexity vs. ..." level.
| |