From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756516Ab1CBTHi (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:07:38 -0500 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:21602 "EHLO rcsinet10.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754360Ab1CBTHh (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:07:37 -0500 Message-ID: <4D6E9541.2040201@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 11:06:41 -0800 From: Yinghai Lu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125 SUSE/3.0.11 Thunderbird/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo 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 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> <20110302190208.GD28266@mtj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20110302190208.GD28266@mtj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090205.4D6E9566.0021,ss=1,fgs=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/02/2011 11:02 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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? my point is that we really not need to go over it if original is not there. > >> 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. never mind. Thanks Yinghai