Re: [git pull] cpus4096 fixes

[Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>]

Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Monday 28 July 2008 13:06:36 Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:42:12 +1000 Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> 
> wrote:
>>> The 4k CPU patches have been sliding in without review up until now.
>> wot?
> 
> This surprises you?  I stumbled across the cpumask_of_cpu() bug because I 
> happened to want it for stop_machine and read the damned code.  But it lead 
> me to the surrounding code, which is pretty questionable.  An arch-specific 
> map, rather than depending on NR_CPUS?  Adding set_cpus_allowed_ptr() instead 
> of changing set_cpus_allowed()?  Macros which declare things and may or may 
> not do an allocation/free?  Finally a patch so horrifically ugly that it 
> can't be ignored any more gets all the way to Linus.
> 
> Overall, it seems like an attempt to sneak in gradual workarounds for cpumasks 
> on the stack, rather than a coherent plan.  I understand the temptation to 
> avoid an "are we prepared to pay this price for large NR_CPUS?" discussion, 
> but we need it anyway.
> 
> And that's what I call "review".
> Rusty.


I'm not sure I can respond to all, but some of this was brought up in discussions
previously, and I always took the advice and objections that came up.  I don't
think anything went in that wasn't (at least in general) agreed upon by those that
reviewed any of my changes.  If I did some things wrong, I apologize and I'll take
full blame ("rookie mistakes?" ;-).

Thanks,
Mike