Re: [patch 1/2] ufd v1 - unsequential O(1) fdmap core

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 22:37 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:
> 
> > > For example, the recent futex.c changes you did in commit 34f01cc1 
> > > are, and unfortunately there's no better word i can find: plain 
> > > disgusting. You apparently have plopped the 'fshared' code into the 
> > > existing logic via conditionals and have blown up the complexity of 
> > > the functions for no good reason - instead of neatly separating them 
> > > out. You have added _33_ (thirty-three!) new 'if' branches to 
> > > futex.c! The feature you introduced is nice and useful, but for 
> > > heaven's sake please work on cleanliness of your code some more and 
> > > undo that colossal damage ... preferably before working on other 
> > > areas of the kernel.
> > 
> > This code took the normal path for inclusion and discussion. If you 
> > find it so horrible, you should complained before. Fact is that you 
> > Acked it :)
> 
> yes, of course, i still think it's a good and nice patch, all things 
> considered =B-)
> 
> > If you wanted to make a joke, I find it quite misplaced.
> 
> no, i just wanted to make a demonstration that one can be pretty nasty 
> in on-lkml replies while being technically correct :-) I think you went 
> a bit overboard in your replies to Davide. Lets move this back into 
> constructive channels, ok? :)

I'm digging into the pending futex bugs anyway. I'm doing some cleanups
along the way to make the code look more like it used to look before :)

	tglx