lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [v2,5/8] NUMA Hotplug emulator
    On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:05:07PM +0800, Shaohui Zheng wrote:
    > >
    > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:13:30PM +0800, Shaohui Zheng wrote:
    > > > >This looks like an incredibly painful interface. How about scrapping all
    > > > >of this _emu() mess and just reworking the register_cpu() interface?
    > > > > Something like:
    > > >
    > > > hi, Paul
    > > > I saw your reply on patchwork.kernel.org, but I did not find your email
    > > > in my mailbox, you might forget to cc to me.
    > > >
    > > Then fix your mailer. You are presently forcing Mail-Followup-To to the
    > > list, which in turn is dropping you from the cc on a group reply.
    >
    > My mailer is mutt, and I did not configure "Mail-Follow-To", it should use the
    > default value. I add "set followup_to=no" to my ~/muttrc file now.
    >
    > Hope it is got fixed, thanks you for your remind.
    >
    Yes, it's fixed now!

    > > > I think that your register_cpu_node interface seems good, but this will
    > > > remove the interface register_cpu. it is not the original purpose of the
    > > > emulator, we want to emulate the oringal process, but we did not want to change
    > > > the old interface, that is a rule.
    > > >
    > > Wait, what? How does my patch remove register_cpu()? It does no such
    > > thing, all it does is add a supplemental register_cpu_node() for you to
    > > call in to, without needing to carry any of the _emu() damage around. The
    > > old interface has not been modified in any way whatsoever.
    >
    > I recheck your patch, It seems that I misunderstand it. with your function
    > register_cpu_node, we can call it in arch_cpu_probe, and then we need not the _emu()
    > any more. Our _emu() functions work, but it get thing complicated. :)
    >
    > I will rework patch 4 and patch 5 with your suggestion, thanks.
    >
    Perhaps the easiest is just to insert my patch in to your series as a
    standalone thing and then build on top of it for your patches 4 and 5. If
    you wish to do this, then you can of course add my Signed-off-by for
    that.

    Also, are you doing this development in a git tree somewhere? I'd like to
    get it going on top of SH also, so it would be nice to have a point of
    reference for keeping things in sync (otherwise I'll just make a topic
    branch with your newest version and send you updates incrementally).


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-16 08:07    [W:0.023 / U:59.132 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site