Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757313AbYB1B3I (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:29:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752478AbYB1B2v (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:28:51 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:40581 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751500AbYB1B2u (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:28:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:27:30 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Ingo Molnar Cc: David Miller , akpm@linux-foundation.org, dada1@cosmosbay.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: include/linux/pcounter.h Message-ID: <20080228012730.GN4725@ghostprotocols.net> Mail-Followup-To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Ingo Molnar , David Miller , akpm@linux-foundation.org, dada1@cosmosbay.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20080216112618.ec450f9b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080216.215401.20463603.davem@davemloft.net> <20080226092454.GA10987@elte.hu> <20080226.133531.69481052.davem@davemloft.net> <20080227073650.GC4638@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080227073650.GC4638@elte.hu> X-Url: http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/blog User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2162 Lines: 45 Em Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 08:36:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu: > > * David Miller wrote: > > > > but the main and fundamental question still remains unanswered (more > > > than 3 weeks after Andrew asked that question): why was this piece > > > of general infrastructure merged via net.git and not submitted to > > > lkml ever? The code touching -mm does _not_ count as "review". > > > > I already stated this was a mistake and it won't happen again in the > > future. > > sorry - that bit of the thread didnt seem to make it to lkml. I just saw > this incomplete discussion with a denial and with no resolution. > > And you did the right thing anyway by thinking in terms of a generic > piece of infrastructure instead of hiding it away into say > include/net/pcounter.h (which nobody could have objected against). > > I sometimes think that the forced isolation of subsystems (rather > strongly enforced both by -mm and by linux-next) and their hiding away > on non-lkml lists will eventually hurt the core kernel because less and > less people will be willing to go the trouble of doing proper > cross-subsystem development. That results in duplicated or specialistic > infrastructure, increased code size and longer term, ultimately less > performance. (by the time we notice _that_ it will probably be too late > to do anything about it) This more friendly wording makes me feel actually happy to get from my hiding place and tell that I actually saw the percpu counters code, just after I made Eric's code generic as I thought it should have been from the start, I found out about what was already in lib/. I just got lazy to do what at the time looked the right thing to do: to read thru the existing lib/ code and use it where pcounter was being used. But at least it got exposed 8-) Anyway, progress was made, I do not feel too bad about it even now. - Arnaldo -- 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/