Re: [PATCH] percpu ida: Switch to cpumask_t, add some comments

[Nicholas A. Bellinger]

On Wed, 2013-08-28 at 14:36 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:23:58 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > I found things to be quite the opposite - it took 5 minutes of staring,
> > > head-scratching, double-checking and penny-dropping before I was
> > > confident that the newly-added code actually has nothing at all to do
> > > with the current code.  Putting it in the same file was misleading, and
> > > I got misled.
> > 
> > Ok... and I could see how the fact that it currently _doesn't_ have
> > anything to do with the existing code would be confusing...
> > 
> > Do you think that if/when it's making use of the ida rewrite it'll be
> > ok? Or would you still prefer to have it in a new file
> 
> I'm constitutionally reluctant to ever assume that any out-of-tree code
> will be merged.  Maybe you'll get hit by a bus, and maybe the code
> sucks ;)
> 
> Are you sure that the two things are so tangled together that they must
> live in the same file?  If there's some nice layering between ida and
> percpu_ida then perhaps such a physical separation would remain
> appropriate?
> 
> > (and if so, any preference on the naming?)
> 
> percpu_ida.c?

Hi Andrew,

I've folded Kent's two patches from this thread into the -v4 commit, and
moved the logic from idr.[c,h] to percpu_ida.[c,h] as per your above
recommendation.

The cpumask_t changes are working as expected thus far, and will be
going out a -v5 series for you to review -> signoff shortly.

Thank you,

--nab

--
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/