Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753655Ab3HaDDx (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:03:53 -0400 Received: from mail.linux-iscsi.org ([67.23.28.174]:52749 "EHLO linux-iscsi.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752307Ab3HaDDv (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:03:51 -0400 Message-ID: <1377918658.32763.311.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu ida: Switch to cpumask_t, add some comments From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" To: Andrew Morton Cc: Kent Overstreet , 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 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 20:10:58 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20130828143657.9366592fe5eb6f0b09feb732@linux-foundation.org> 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> <20130828143657.9366592fe5eb6f0b09feb732@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1763 Lines: 46 On Wed, 2013-08-28 at 14:36 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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? Hi Andrew, I've folded Kent's two patches from this thread into the -v4 commit, and moved the logic from idr.[c,h] to percpu_ida.[c,h] as per your above recommendation. The cpumask_t changes are working as expected thus far, and will be going out a -v5 series for you to review -> signoff shortly. Thank you, --nab -- 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/