[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101118084257.GF26398@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:42:57 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
yinghai@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9 UPDATED-1] x86: Initialize 32bit logical apicid
mapping early during boot
* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hey, Ingo.
>
> On 11/18/2010 09:30 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > This patch is still _WAY_ too large.
>
> Really? Alright, I'll split it further.
This is a very sensitive area of code that tends to blow up in nasty ways. So when
we do changes here we want them super-finegrained. If you split it up into 30
reasonable patches - no problem at all. (here up to 5 would suffice i think)
Yinghai used to have this too big patches illness too.
> > Also, these:
> >
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> >> +#endif
> >
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> >> +#endif
> >
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> >> +#endif
> >
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> >> +#endif
> >
> > Are rather ugly.
>
> Yeah, what they do is ugly. It gets less uglier after the patchset.
> I'll see if some of them can be dropped but I don't think putting them
> inside ifdef'd inline functions necessarily improves things. It often
> just makes things more difficult to follow.
Can we remove them? Or does it make any sense on the 64-bit side?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists