On 03/29/2010 04:29 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 15:17 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: >>> That was the point of my other mail. We now have two lmb APIs, one >> which >>> checks if the array will overflow and one which doesn't. That seems >> like >>> a bad idea. Having one called lmb_free() and one called free_lmb() >> is >>> definitely a bad idea, because it's completely non obvious which one >>> caters for overflow. >> >> I want to keep the affects to other lmb users to minium at first. >> >> and we can merge those functions later. >> >> or you insist on merging them in this patchset? > > As a separate patch sure, but you should really separate the patch > series that changes LMB from the one that moves x86 to it imho. It would > make things much clearer. Those patches should go through tip/x86 ? Please check the patches only have "lmb:" in the subject. > > It would also allow you to spend some time properly -documenting- why > you need to change LMB the way you do, since it's non obvious for those > not familiar with x86 needs. I'm not objecting to the changes, I'm just > asking for much better documentation as to why they are needed and what > function they provide. Thanks, will try to write more changelog for next reversion. Yinghai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
