Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 13:41:06 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86: UV uv_tlb.c cleanup
Message-ID: <20110523114106.GA16328@elte.hu>
References: <E1QNVdB-0008Mk-GP@eag09.americas.sgi.com>
 <20110521103847.GA26447@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110521103847.GA26447@elte.hu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1292
Lines: 32


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com> wrote:
> 
> > One logic difference:
> > Breaking uv_init_per_cpu() into get_cpu_topology() and summarize_uvhub_sockets()
> > actually corrects a possible bug for the theoretical case in which there is a
> > missing socket on a blade. An 'smaster' (socket master) had been expected for
> > every socket.
> 
> Please, as i asked in the previous mail, do not add logic changes to the 
> cleanup patch! Please keep it in a separate patch, after the big cleanup patch.
> 
> It will be very hard to debug if you find a regression in that cleanup patch: 
> since it also changes logic you do not know whether it's due to changed logic 
> or one of the cleanups having an unintended side-effect ...

Btw, once you've fixed that side-effect i think we can apply your current set 
of cleanups already: it's big enough already and starting to be too big for 
review, and the improvements are very clear. Then we could work on fixing the 
remaining cleanliness issues.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/