On Wed, 2013-08-28 at 14:36 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:23:58 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Ok... and I could see how the fact that it currently _doesn't_ have > > anything to do with the existing code would be confusing... > > > > Do you think that if/when it's making use of the ida rewrite it'll be > > ok? Or would you still prefer to have it in a new file > > I'm constitutionally reluctant to ever assume that any out-of-tree code > will be merged. Maybe you'll get hit by a bus, and maybe the code > sucks ;) > > Are you sure that the two things are so tangled together that they must > live in the same file? If there's some nice layering between ida and > percpu_ida then perhaps such a physical separation would remain > appropriate? > > > (and if so, any preference on the naming?) > > percpu_ida.c? Hi Andrew, I've folded Kent's two patches from this thread into the -v4 commit, and moved the logic from idr.[c,h] to percpu_ida.[c,h] as per your above recommendation. The cpumask_t changes are working as expected thus far, and will be going out a -v5 series for you to review -> signoff shortly. Thank you, --nab _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
