mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	astarikovskiy@suse.de, len.brown@intel.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: mpparse merge
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:42:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080410104203.GE10019@one.firstfloor.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080410101408.GA12853@elte.hu>

> the way Alexey did it is the safest way of doing unifications: keep it 
> simple and finegrained first, keep the more complex steps to later. We 

If he unifies dumbly like you seem to be fond of doing CONFIG_X86_32 when it 
should be CONFIG_FUNCTIONALITY is the wrong way. Can we agree on that?
The ifdef jungle is not any less from that, but at least it is clear
what the code does which makes further changes much easier. Basically
it preserves more information.

> try to stick to that even if there's a temporary jungle of #ifdefs. In a 
> related discussion (which was unfortunately private too so no URLs) you 
> suggested to Alexey to redesign the mp-parsing code first, then unify 
> it. That's the worst possible approach to unification and i advise 

The best approach depends on the code, not on a static rule of thumb. It
can be either depending on the code and the circumstances or often a mix of 
both. 

A good example where the static rule of thumb went totally wrong is Glauber's 
recent smpboot unification without fixing the state machine first.  I'm still 
not sure he has all the races out caused by that yet and I predict 
you'll have some debugging fun with that in the .26 cycle.

-Andi


      reply	other threads:[~2008-04-10 10:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20080410092947.GA32376@basil.nowhere.org>
2008-04-10 10:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-10 10:42   ` Andi Kleen [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080410104203.GE10019@one.firstfloor.org \
    --to=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=astarikovskiy@suse.de \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®