lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git pull] cpus4096 fixes
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Monday 28 July 2008 13:06:36 Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:42:12 +1000 Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
> wrote:
>>> The 4k CPU patches have been sliding in without review up until now.
>> wot?
>
> This surprises you? I stumbled across the cpumask_of_cpu() bug because I
> happened to want it for stop_machine and read the damned code. But it lead
> me to the surrounding code, which is pretty questionable. An arch-specific
> map, rather than depending on NR_CPUS? Adding set_cpus_allowed_ptr() instead
> of changing set_cpus_allowed()? Macros which declare things and may or may
> not do an allocation/free? Finally a patch so horrifically ugly that it
> can't be ignored any more gets all the way to Linus.
>
> Overall, it seems like an attempt to sneak in gradual workarounds for cpumasks
> on the stack, rather than a coherent plan. I understand the temptation to
> avoid an "are we prepared to pay this price for large NR_CPUS?" discussion,
> but we need it anyway.
>
> And that's what I call "review".
> Rusty.


I'm not sure I can respond to all, but some of this was brought up in discussions
previously, and I always took the advice and objections that came up. I don't
think anything went in that wasn't (at least in general) agreed upon by those that
reviewed any of my changes. If I did some things wrong, I apologize and I'll take
full blame ("rookie mistakes?" ;-).

Thanks,
Mike


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-28 20:15    [W:0.114 / U:1.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site