lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] percpu ida: Switch to cpumask_t, add some comments
    On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 02:10:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:00:10 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo@daterainc.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 01:25:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:55:17 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo@daterainc.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Fixup patch, addressing Andrew's review feedback:
    > > >
    > > > Looks reasonable.
    > > >
    > > > > lib/idr.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
    > > >
    > > > I still don't think it should be in this file.
    > > >
    > > > You say that some as-yet-unmerged patches will tie the new code into
    > > > the old ida code. But will it do it in a manner which requires that
    > > > the two reside in the same file?
    > >
    > > Not require, no - but it's just intimate enough with my ida rewrite that
    > > I think it makes sense; it makes some use of stuff that should be
    > > internal to the ida code.
    > >
    > > Mostly just sharing the lock though, since I got rid of the ida
    > > interfaces that don't do locking, but percpu ida needs a lock that also
    > > covers what ida needs.
    > >
    > > It also makes use of a ganged allocation interface, but there's no real
    > > reason ida can't expose that, it's just unlikely to be useful to
    > > anything but percpu ida.
    > >
    > > The other reason I think it makes sense to live in idr.c is more for
    > > users of the code; as you pointed out as far as the user's perspective
    > > percpu ida isn't doing anything fundamentally different from ida, so I
    > > think it makes sense for the code to live in the same place as a
    > > kindness to future kernel developers who are trying to find their way
    > > around the various library code.
    >
    > I found things to be quite the opposite - it took 5 minutes of staring,
    > head-scratching, double-checking and penny-dropping before I was
    > confident that the newly-added code actually has nothing at all to do
    > with the current code. Putting it in the same file was misleading, and
    > I got misled.

    Ok... and I could see how the fact that it currently _doesn't_ have
    anything to do with the existing code would be confusing...

    Do you think that if/when it's making use of the ida rewrite it'll be
    ok? Or would you still prefer to have it in a new file (and if so, any
    preference on the naming?)


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-08-29 00:01    [W:4.043 / U:0.364 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site