From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267664AbUHJVli (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:41:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267756AbUHJVin (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:38:43 -0400 Received: from jade.spiritone.com ([216.99.193.136]:25814 "EHLO jade.spiritone.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267753AbUHJVgt (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:36:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 07:49:47 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Paul Jackson cc: akpm@osdl.org, hch@infradead.org, steiner@sgi.com, jbarnes@sgi.com, sylvain.jeaugey@bull.net, djh@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, colpatch@us.ibm.com, Simon.Derr@bull.net, ak@suse.de, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, sivanich@sgi.com Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] new bitmap list format (for cpusets) Message-ID: <2558220000.1092062986@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <20040809010106.70e74f4b.pj@sgi.com> References: <20040805100901.3740.99823.84118@sam.engr.sgi.com><250840000.1091738840@flay> <20040809010106.70e74f4b.pj@sgi.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Paul Jackson wrote (on Monday, August 09, 2004 01:01:06 -0700): > I was looking at this bitmap list format patch over the weekend, and > came to the conclusion that the basic list format, as in the example: > > 0,3,5,8-15 > > was a valuable improvement over a fixed length hex mask, but that on the > other hand the support for: > > the prefix characters '=', '-', '+', or '!' > > was fluff, that few would learn to use, and fewer find essential. OK, that looks a lot more palletable ;-) Question: it looks like you're only parsing on the read-side to me (which is good, since it's highly unlikely to break anything existant), but the function bitmap_scnlistprintf is still in there - is that needed? I can't see any callers, but I might be missing one? I guess it might be for your other patch, but it'd seem to make the parsing a whole lot more complicated in userspace for the reader if we did use that ... It looks like cpulist_scnprintf calls __cpulist_scnprintf, which just calls bitmap_scnlistprintf, but nobody calls either of the former 2 ... ditto for nodelist_scnprintf. M. PS. Similarly, do we really need both cpumask_parse and __cpumask_parse in front of bitmap_parse? One seems to make sense for abstracting the generic parse routine, but 2 seems like overkill ;-) (yeah, I know that was there before this patch ... just seems odd).