From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S261424AbVF1JLd@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S261424AbVF1JLd (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Tue, 28 Jun 2005 05:11:33 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261587AbVF1JLd
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 28 Jun 2005 05:11:33 -0400
Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:52132 "EHLO mx1.suse.de")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261424AbVF1JL0 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 28 Jun 2005 05:11:26 -0400
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:11:17 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Vladimir Saveliev <vs@namesys.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>,
       "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: reiser4 merging action list
Message-ID: <20050628091117.GJ8035@wotan.suse.de>
References: <42BB7B32.4010100@slaphack.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <200506240334.j5O3YowB008100@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <20050627092138.GD11013@nysv.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <20050627124255.GB6280@thunk.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <42C0578F.7030608@namesys.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <20050627212628.GB27805@thunk.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <42C084F1.70607@namesys.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <p73vf3zuqzq.fsf@verdi.suse.de> <1119947829.3495.25.camel@tribesman.namesys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1119947829.3495.25.camel@tribesman.namesys.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:37:11PM +0400, Vladimir Saveliev wrote:
> have neither prof.[ch], nor spinprof.[ch] and we removed already some
> debugging code from spin_macros.h.

Yes, i was looking at some older tree with reiser4. Sorry, just
ignore what is already done.

But still spin_macros.h should be completely removed imho. Such
custom lock wrappers are strongly discouraged because it 
makes it hard for others to read your code.


> > statcnt.h: This is completely useless because you don't align
> > the individual fields for cache lines - so you will still
> > have false sharing everywhere. Also using NR_CPUS is nasty
> > because it can be very big - num_possible_cpus() is better. 
> > It should use the new dynamic per cpu allocator.
> > 
> statcnt.h is already removed.

Great.

-Andi