Re: [patch 1/1] uml-update-2.6.8-finish

[BlaisorBlade]

On Friday 10 September 2004 23:03, Jeff Dike wrote:
> blaisorblade_personal@xxxxxxxx said:
> > About the one from Jeff Dike, it's dangerous because I don't know
> > whether or  not we would see any introduced bug.

> The ghash removal?  That's necessary, for one, and that code isn't
> currently used anyway, so any bugs that I introduced can be sorted out
> later.  For now, it's sufficient that it compiles.
And making it compile with the hash code, rather than the rb_tree one? I know 
ghash.h must be removed, but there is no reason at all to switch to Red-Black 
trees. Even because, later, we will just see "Hey, I get a panic here" + 
backtrace. Doing things right in first place is better.

Andrew, what's your opinion about this? Do you prefer staying with the same 
code (but without having a ghash.h) or using the new one?

My idea is to move the needed #defines (not everything) inside physmem.c for 
now, so that ghash.h does not appear in 2.6.9; then, after fixing the 
breakage for mainline, we can look at the code to see if it needs any change; 
however that should be tested for a while (probably in Jeff Dike's tree, 
which is going to become for experimental stuff, now that UML gets merged in 
mainline).

Bye
-- 
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/