Re: include/linux/pcounter.h
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <hidden>
Date: 2008-02-28 01:29:08
Also in:
lkml
Em Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 08:36:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
* David Miller [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
but the main and fundamental question still remains unanswered (more than 3 weeks after Andrew asked that question): why was this piece of general infrastructure merged via net.git and not submitted to lkml ever? The code touching -mm does _not_ count as "review".I already stated this was a mistake and it won't happen again in the future.sorry - that bit of the thread didnt seem to make it to lkml. I just saw this incomplete discussion with a denial and with no resolution. And you did the right thing anyway by thinking in terms of a generic piece of infrastructure instead of hiding it away into say include/net/pcounter.h (which nobody could have objected against). I sometimes think that the forced isolation of subsystems (rather strongly enforced both by -mm and by linux-next) and their hiding away on non-lkml lists will eventually hurt the core kernel because less and less people will be willing to go the trouble of doing proper cross-subsystem development. That results in duplicated or specialistic infrastructure, increased code size and longer term, ultimately less performance. (by the time we notice _that_ it will probably be too late to do anything about it)
This more friendly wording makes me feel actually happy to get from my hiding place and tell that I actually saw the percpu counters code, just after I made Eric's code generic as I thought it should have been from the start, I found out about what was already in lib/. I just got lazy to do what at the time looked the right thing to do: to read thru the existing lib/ code and use it where pcounter was being used. But at least it got exposed 8-) Anyway, progress was made, I do not feel too bad about it even now. - Arnaldo