Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932678Ab0KPGZg (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 01:25:36 -0500 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:24441 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932251Ab0KPGZf (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 01:25:35 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,204,1288594800"; d="scan'208";a="858006202" Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:05:07 +0800 From: Shaohui Zheng To: "shaohui.zheng@linux.intel.com" , lethal@linux-sh.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [v2,5/8] NUMA Hotplug emulator Message-ID: <20101116050507.GA21317@shaohui> Reply-To: shaohui.zheng@linux.intel.com Mail-Followup-To: "shaohui.zheng@linux.intel.com" , lethal@linux-sh.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20101116041330.GA20694@shaohui> <20101116054747.GA1064@linux-sh.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1875 Lines: 44 > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:13:30PM +0800, Shaohui Zheng wrote: > > >This looks like an incredibly painful interface. How about scrapping all > > >of this _emu() mess and just reworking the register_cpu() interface? > > > Something like: > > > > hi, Paul > > I saw your reply on patchwork.kernel.org, but I did not find your email > > in my mailbox, you might forget to cc to me. > > > Then fix your mailer. You are presently forcing Mail-Followup-To to the > list, which in turn is dropping you from the cc on a group reply. My mailer is mutt, and I did not configure "Mail-Follow-To", it should use the default value. I add "set followup_to=no" to my ~/muttrc file now. Hope it is got fixed, thanks you for your remind. > > > I think that your register_cpu_node interface seems good, but this will > > remove the interface register_cpu. it is not the original purpose of the > > emulator, we want to emulate the oringal process, but we did not want to change > > the old interface, that is a rule. > > > Wait, what? How does my patch remove register_cpu()? It does no such > thing, all it does is add a supplemental register_cpu_node() for you to > call in to, without needing to carry any of the _emu() damage around. The > old interface has not been modified in any way whatsoever. I recheck your patch, It seems that I misunderstand it. with your function register_cpu_node, we can call it in arch_cpu_probe, and then we need not the _emu() any more. Our _emu() functions work, but it get thing complicated. :) I will rework patch 4 and patch 5 with your suggestion, thanks. -- Thanks & Regards, Shaohui -- 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/