Re: [PATCH] percpu ida: Switch to cpumask_t, add some comments

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:23:58 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo@daterainc.com> wrote:

> > I found things to be quite the opposite - it took 5 minutes of staring,
> > head-scratching, double-checking and penny-dropping before I was
> > confident that the newly-added code actually has nothing at all to do
> > with the current code.  Putting it in the same file was misleading, and
> > I got misled.
> 
> Ok... and I could see how the fact that it currently _doesn't_ have
> anything to do with the existing code would be confusing...
> 
> Do you think that if/when it's making use of the ida rewrite it'll be
> ok? Or would you still prefer to have it in a new file

I'm constitutionally reluctant to ever assume that any out-of-tree code
will be merged.  Maybe you'll get hit by a bus, and maybe the code
sucks ;)

Are you sure that the two things are so tangled together that they must
live in the same file?  If there's some nice layering between ida and
percpu_ida then perhaps such a physical separation would remain
appropriate?

> (and if so, any preference on the naming?)

percpu_ida.c?