From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756951Ab1CBTCT (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:02:19 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:54067 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756338Ab1CBTCQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:02:16 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=DAMmWk5Q3Ox6gWHJIQa6qb3b5VEPRr35Q8/AbcHhGUPPwlCxSO0vUu4Vs8elhZLXU+ OygGmYr/6WYDSo/7K1J51JCYx8bnTzsUGO8i9/ZmSBZgGxj16k/PxhmgMOExG/7aj55E aRvQgF51+JIcOOn+bK+3ZX15WZ8a81Rzu0hOQ= Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:02:08 +0100 From: Tejun Heo To: Yinghai Lu Cc: David Rientjes , Ingo Molnar , tglx@linutronix.de, "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling Message-ID: <20110302190208.GD28266@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <20110224192305.GB15498@elte.hu> <4D66B176.9030300@kernel.org> <20110302100400.GK19669@htj.dyndns.org> <20110302102530.GB3319@htj.dyndns.org> <4D6E6D52.8030901@kernel.org> <20110302163729.GQ3319@htj.dyndns.org> <4D6E7459.6050706@kernel.org> <20110302165545.GR3319@htj.dyndns.org> <4D6E91EC.6040906@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D6E91EC.6040906@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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