From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754020Ab1AUPdZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:33:25 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:48026 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753828Ab1AUPdZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:33:25 -0500 Message-ID: <4D39A6EB.70705@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:31:55 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: Pekka Enberg , Christoph Lameter , Mathieu Desnoyers , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [cpuops cmpxchg double V2 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg_double References: <20110106204513.669098445@linux.com> <20110106204525.222395863@linux.com> <4D263C91.30709@zytor.com> <20110107180419.GB23082@Krystal> <20110108172453.GF13269@mtj.dyndns.org> <4D393636.4040607@cs.helsinki.fi> <20110121092649.GA2832@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20110121092649.GA2832@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/21/2011 01:26 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 09:31:02AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: >> On 1/8/11 7:24 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> Call me weird but I like this one than others. It sure is ugly but >>> the operation itself isn't a particularly pretty so it kinda matches. >>> Also, this one is the least error prone and more consistent with other >>> cpu ops. >> >> So what are we going to do about this patch? I'd love to merge >> Christoph's SLUB patches for linux-next now that .38-rc1 is out. > > At least you like it, which is good. > > I don't think the currently proposed one with two separate parameters > is significantly better than other alternatives and vice-versa. They > all have slightly different ugliness and error proneness issues. > > That said, I still like the double parameter one best, and, unless > there are distinctively good reasons to choose another one, I'm gonna > commit it to percpu tree in a few days so that merge can proceed. So, > if you have something to say, now would be a good time to assert it. > I really object to passing two pointers where one of them has to be a fixed offset to the other. That really doesn't make any sense. -hpa