[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <00000141505b72a3-6935722e-fdfb-4c46-b52c-bc40609144ac-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:24:36 +0000
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, akpm@...uxfoundation.org,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [pchecks v1 4/4] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu
ops
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> During past review of your series Peter Zijlstra very explicitly told you
> to reuse (and unify with) the preempt checks in lib/smp_processor_id.c!
> See debug_smp_processor_id().
No he did not. He mentioned something about debug_smp_processor_id() at
the end of a post after talking about something else. Given your
comments now I see what was meant. That was not really obvious in the
first place.
> The problem isn't just that you are duplicating code and adding
> unnecessary #ifdefs into the wrong place, the bigger problem is that you
> are implementing weak checks which creates unnecessary raw_*() pollution
> all across the kernel.
what kind of idiotic comment is that? I am using a single function
preemptible(). How is that duplicating anything?
> Your lack of cooperation is getting ridiculous!
And this kind of insulting behavior is really discouraging people to do
work on the kernel.
--
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