Message-ID: <476AD8A7.6050709@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:03:35 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@gmail.com>,
       Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: another attempt at x86 pagetable unification
References: <20071219223534.129042140@goop.org> <20071220094940.GA14227@elte.hu>
In-Reply-To: <20071220094940.GA14227@elte.hu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2274
Lines: 61

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> Here's another round of the pagetable unification patches.  I've done 
>> a few dozen rounds of randconfig builds on both 32- and 64-bit, so I 
>> hope that will prevent compile problems in your test environment.
>>
>> I've also boot-tested 64-bit and 32-bit PAE/non-PAE configs (both 
>> paravirt and non-paravirt).
>>     
>
> i've done a dozen random tests too and it's looking good so far. Nice 
> work!
>
> pgtable_32.h and pgtable_64.h still look a tiny bit messy from the 
> include file dependencies POV. For example pgtable_32.h:
>
>  #include <asm/processor.h>
>  #include <asm/fixmap.h>
>  #include <linux/threads.h>
>  #include <asm/paravirt.h>
>
>  #include <linux/bitops.h>
>  #include <linux/slab.h>
>  #include <linux/list.h>
>  #include <linux/spinlock.h>
>
> that asm/paravirt.h include is already present in pgtable.h, in a 
> somewhat quirky way:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> #include <asm/paravirt.h>
> #else  /* !CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
>
> also, most of the:
>
>   scripts/checkpatch.pl --file include/asm-x86/pgtable*.h
>
> complaints are real ones and should be fixed.
>
> would you be interested in cleaning up that stuff once and forever? It 
> would be a fine approach if you just tried to quickly push for a "high 
> quality" end result in a series of patches and sent that series to me, 
> without having tested it fully through - i can figure out whatever build 
> breakages and dependencies there still are. So there would be no 
> expectation of getting such a cleanup series right in the first (or 
> second, or third) attempt, this is spaghetti code that has been 
> accumulated up for years. The important thing would be to be careful to 
> not introduce runtime breakages accidentally - build breakages due to 
> some include file dependency we can sort out just fine. Hm?

Yep, I'm happy to do a cleanup pass.  I just wanted to get this out the
door while it seemed to work for me.  But I'll fix the bug first.

    J
--
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/