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. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
