From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 0/0] reciprocal_divide update Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 23:20:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20140121.232001.48714613002250339.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1390354181-5080-1-git-send-email-hannes@stressinduktion.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: hannes@stressinduktion.org Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:40568 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750984AbaAVHUC (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jan 2014 02:20:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1390354181-5080-1-git-send-email-hannes@stressinduktion.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 02:29:38 +0100 > This patch is on top of aee636c4809fa5 ("bpf: do not use reciprocal > divide") from Eric that sits in net tree. It will not create a merge > conflict, but it depends on this one, so we suggest, if possible, to > merge net into net-next. > > We are proposing this change with only small modifications from the > v2 version, namely updating the name of trim to reciprocal_scale > (as commented on by Ben Hutchings and Eric Dumazet, thanks!). > > We thought about introducing the reciprocal_divide algorithm in > parallel to the one already used by the kernel but faced organizational > issues, leading us to the conclusion that it is best to just replace > the old one: We could not come up with names for the different > implementations and also with a way to describe the differences to > guide developers which one to choose in which situation. This is > because we cannot specify the correct semantics for the version > which is currently used by the kernel. Altough it seems to not be > causing problems in the kernel, we cannot surely say so in the > case of flex_array for the future. Current usage seems ok, but > future users could run into problems. Series applied, thanks.