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

[Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>]

Ingo Molnar a écrit :
> * 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? :)

No problem Ingo. I am sorry you and Davide took my remarks so badly.
I tried to be constructive.

You know this stuff got my interest, since I even tested your file 
open-many-fd benchmark :)

I have some machines around with 1.000.000 file descriptors opened by one 
process. I even had to change NR_OPEN (1024*1024 was too small for me :) )