linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110302190208.GD28266@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:02:08 +0100
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table
 handling

Hey, Yinghai.

On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 10:52:28AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > Complexity of a solution should match the benefit of the complexity.
> > Code complexity is one of the most important metrics that we need to
> > keep an eye on.  If you don't do that, the code base becomes very ugly
> > and difficult to maintain very quickly.  So, yes, some amount of
> > execution inefficiency is acceptable depending on circumstances.
> > Efficiency too is something which should be traded off against other
> > benefits.
> 
> No. it is not acceptable in your case.
> 
> We can accept that something like: during init stage, do some probe
> and call pathes to be happy.  like subarch.

Hmmm?  I can't really follow your sentence.  This is init stage.
Anyways, why can't it just walk over the enabled nodes?  What would be
the difference?

> Also why did you omit my first question?

Yeah, well, because that wasn't completely consistent with what I said
earlier.  I wanted to tell you to take the assignments out of if () on
your earlier patch but I just let it pass and now I had this another
patch touching the same code, so I just had to do it.

I know it's a petty style thing but it's my pet peeve and I can't help
it when related change goes through me, so there it is.  I'm sorry but
I'll probaly do it again.  I beg your understanding.

Thank you.

-- 
tejun
--
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/