Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755234Ab3H1VhB (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:37:01 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:54862 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752780Ab3H1Vg7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:36:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:36:57 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Kent Overstreet Cc: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , target-devel , lf-virt , lkml , kvm-devel , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Asias He , Jens Axboe , Tejun Heo , Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen , Christoph Lameter , Oleg Nesterov , Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu ida: Switch to cpumask_t, add some comments Message-Id: <20130828143657.9366592fe5eb6f0b09feb732@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20130828212358.GF1357@kmo-pixel> References: <1376694549-20609-1-git-send-email-nab@linux-iscsi.org> <1376694549-20609-2-git-send-email-nab@linux-iscsi.org> <20130820143157.f91bf59d16352989b54e431e@linux-foundation.org> <20130828195517.GF8032@kmo-pixel> <20130828132550.d0ce4d3a4d40ee07e7e8a1c1@linux-foundation.org> <20130828210010.GD1357@kmo-pixel> <20130828141019.25aff643c87e43ffafdbcb7e@linux-foundation.org> <20130828212358.GF1357@kmo-pixel> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.2.0beta5 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1334 Lines: 31 On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:23:58 -0700 Kent Overstreet wrote: > > 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 I'm constitutionally reluctant to ever assume that any out-of-tree code will be merged. Maybe you'll get hit by a bus, and maybe the code sucks ;) Are you sure that the two things are so tangled together that they must live in the same file? If there's some nice layering between ida and percpu_ida then perhaps such a physical separation would remain appropriate? > (and if so, any preference on the naming?) percpu_ida.c? -- 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/