From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760810AbYG1SMZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:12:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751146AbYG1SMR (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:12:17 -0400 Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.171.30]:37371 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752296AbYG1SMQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:12:16 -0400 Message-ID: <488E0BFF.7080607@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:12:15 -0700 From: Mike Travis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rusty Russell CC: Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [git pull] cpus4096 fixes References: <20080727190601.GA764@elte.hu> <200807281042.12860.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20080727200636.96da12d0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200807281634.43036.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200807281634.43036.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rusty Russell wrote: > On Monday 28 July 2008 13:06:36 Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:42:12 +1000 Rusty Russell > wrote: >>> The 4k CPU patches have been sliding in without review up until now. >> wot? > > This surprises you? I stumbled across the cpumask_of_cpu() bug because I > happened to want it for stop_machine and read the damned code. But it lead > me to the surrounding code, which is pretty questionable. An arch-specific > map, rather than depending on NR_CPUS? Adding set_cpus_allowed_ptr() instead > of changing set_cpus_allowed()? Macros which declare things and may or may > not do an allocation/free? Finally a patch so horrifically ugly that it > can't be ignored any more gets all the way to Linus. > > Overall, it seems like an attempt to sneak in gradual workarounds for cpumasks > on the stack, rather than a coherent plan. I understand the temptation to > avoid an "are we prepared to pay this price for large NR_CPUS?" discussion, > but we need it anyway. > > And that's what I call "review". > Rusty. I'm not sure I can respond to all, but some of this was brought up in discussions previously, and I always took the advice and objections that came up. I don't think anything went in that wasn't (at least in general) agreed upon by those that reviewed any of my changes. If I did some things wrong, I apologize and I'll take full blame ("rookie mistakes?" ;-). Thanks, Mike