On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:00:10 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 01:25:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:55:17 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Fixup patch, addressing Andrew's review feedback: > > > > Looks reasonable. > > > > > lib/idr.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > > > I still don't think it should be in this file. > > > > You say that some as-yet-unmerged patches will tie the new code into > > the old ida code. But will it do it in a manner which requires that > > the two reside in the same file? > > Not require, no - but it's just intimate enough with my ida rewrite that > I think it makes sense; it makes some use of stuff that should be > internal to the ida code. > > Mostly just sharing the lock though, since I got rid of the ida > interfaces that don't do locking, but percpu ida needs a lock that also > covers what ida needs. > > It also makes use of a ganged allocation interface, but there's no real > reason ida can't expose that, it's just unlikely to be useful to > anything but percpu ida. > > The other reason I think it makes sense to live in idr.c is more for > users of the code; as you pointed out as far as the user's perspective > percpu ida isn't doing anything fundamentally different from ida, so I > think it makes sense for the code to live in the same place as a > kindness to future kernel developers who are trying to find their way > around the various library code. 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
