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: <4D6E9541.2040201@kernel.org>
Date:	Wed, 02 Mar 2011 11:06:41 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...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

On 03/02/2011 11:02 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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?

my point is that we really not need to go over it if original is not there.

> 
>> 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.

never mind.

Thanks

Yinghai
--
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/