Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:12:15 -0700 | From | Mike Travis <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |