Re: [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling

From: Yinghai Lu
Date: Wed Mar 02 2011 - 14:07:41 EST


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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/