Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 15:04:11 +0530
From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@in.ibm.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@au1.ibm.com>
Cc: dipankar@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@zip.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmalloc_percpu
Message-ID: <20030506093411.GB29352@in.ibm.com>
References: <20030506050744.GA29352@in.ibm.com> <20030506082949.F2A3217DE0@ozlabs.au.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030506082949.F2A3217DE0@ozlabs.au.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 820
Lines: 21

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 06:03:15PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <20030506050744.GA29352@in.ibm.com> you write:
> .. 
> Doesn't break with sparce CPU #s, but yes, it is inefficient.
> 

If you don't reduce NR_CPUS with CONFIG_NR_CPUS, you waste space (32 bit folks
won't like it) and if you say change CONFIG_NR_CPUS to 2, 
and we have cpuid 4 on a 2 way you break right?  If we have to address these
issues at all, why can't we use the simpler kmalloc_percpu patch
which  I posted in the morning and avoid so much complexity and arch
dependency?  

Thanks,
Kiran

-
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/