From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757538Ab1KVQCd (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:02:33 -0500 Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]:41818 "EHLO mail-qy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754000Ab1KVQCc (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:02:32 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:02:08 -0800 From: Tejun Heo To: Dave Young Cc: WANG Cong , kexec@lists.infradead.org, tim@edgecast.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: fix chunk range calculation Message-ID: <20111122160208.GA3250@google.com> References: <4EC491B3.705@redhat.com> <4EC4B60C.3030706@redhat.com> <1321548033.12208.12.camel@boudreau> <4EC61AB6.4090808@redhat.com> <4EC61B2A.7010000@redhat.com> <20111118185535.GA27152@google.com> <4EC9AD4F.3050404@redhat.com> <20111121170146.GD15314@google.com> <4ECB104C.3040801@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ECB104C.3040801@redhat.com> 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 Hello, Dave. On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:00:28AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > Maybe we can add comment there how it can be further simplified and > > why things look more complicated than necessary? > > I wonder if it's good to add something like CONFIG_PER_CPU_DEBUG? Yeah, having more comprehensive sanity checks w/ CONFIG_PER_CPU_DEBUG would be really nice. > Anyway I have no strong opinion with this. I'm fine to either of adding > comment and put it into debug around. I mostly just don't want to lose the minimal but useful checks in the phys conversion function. Please feel free to improve it. Thank you. -- tejun