On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>
>> I can either rebase that on top of mainline, or we can ask maintainers
>> to take it to their own trees if you take only 01/16 into mainline.
>> What would you prefer?
>
> I don't
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com wrote:
I can either rebase that on top of mainline, or we can ask maintainers
to take it to their own trees if you take only 01/16 into
> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > >> +/* Use hash_32 when possible to allow for fast 32bit hashing in 64bit
> > >> kernels. */
> > >> +#define hash_min(val, bits)
> > >> \
> > >> +({
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
+/* Use hash_32 when possible to allow for fast 32bit hashing in 64bit
kernels. */
+#define hash_min(val, bits)
\
+({
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Oh, well... there go my blackmail plans ;-) Seriously, though, I'm at loss
> regarding several embedded architectures - arch/score, in particular,
> seems to be completely orphaned.
Don't worry about it. Do a best-effort, and if nobody ever
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 07:48:19PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > BTW, how serious have you been back at KS when you were talking about
> > pull requests killing a thousand of lines of code being acceptable
> > at any point in the cycle?
>
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> BTW, how serious have you been back at KS when you were talking about
> pull requests killing a thousand of lines of code being acceptable
> at any point in the cycle?
Well... I'm absolutely a lot more open to pull requests that kill code
than
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 06:25:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But whatever. This series has gotten way too much bike-shedding
> anyway. I think it should just be applied, since it does remove lines
> of code overall. I'd even possibly apply it to mainline, but it seems
> to be against
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> I can either rebase that on top of mainline, or we can ask maintainers
> to take it to their own trees if you take only 01/16 into mainline.
> What would you prefer?
I don't really care deeply. The only reason to merge it now would be
to
Hi Linus,
> But whatever. This series has gotten way too much bike-shedding
> anyway. I think it should just be applied, since it does remove lines
> of code overall. I'd even possibly apply it to mainline, but it seems
> to be against linux-next.
Yup, I switched to using -next because I've been
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 18:25 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > ({\
> > sizeof(val) <= 4 ? hash_32(val, bits) : hash_long(val, bits); \
> > })
> >
> > Is the
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> ({\
> sizeof(val) <= 4 ? hash_32(val, bits) : hash_long(val, bits); \
> })
>
> Is the better way to go. We are C programmers, we like to see the ?: on
> a single
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 20:33 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Just some nitpicks.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> +/* Use hash_32 when possible to allow for fast 32bit hashing in 64bit
> >>
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Jim Rees wrote:
> Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Just some nitpicks.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> +/* Use hash_32 when possible to allow for
Sasha Levin wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just some nitpicks.
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> +/* Use hash_32 when possible to allow for fast 32bit hashing in 64bit
kernels. */
>> +#define hash_min(val,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just some nitpicks.
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> +/* Use hash_32 when possible to allow for fast 32bit hashing in 64bit
>> kernels. */
>> +#define hash_min(val, bits)
Hello,
Just some nitpicks.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> +/* Use hash_32 when possible to allow for fast 32bit hashing in 64bit
> kernels. */
> +#define hash_min(val, bits)
> \
> +({
* Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
> This hashtable implementation is using hlist buckets to provide a simple
> hashtable to prevent it from getting reimplemented all over the kernel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Desnoyers
> ---
>
> Changes from v8:
>
> -
* Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
This hashtable implementation is using hlist buckets to provide a simple
hashtable to prevent it from getting reimplemented all over the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Desnoyers
Hello,
Just some nitpicks.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
+/* Use hash_32 when possible to allow for fast 32bit hashing in 64bit
kernels. */
+#define hash_min(val, bits)
\
+({
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Hello,
Just some nitpicks.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
+/* Use hash_32 when possible to allow for fast 32bit hashing in 64bit
kernels. */
+#define hash_min(val, bits)
Sasha Levin wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Hello,
Just some nitpicks.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
+/* Use hash_32 when possible to allow for fast 32bit hashing in 64bit
kernels. */
+#define
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Jim Rees r...@umich.edu wrote:
Sasha Levin wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Hello,
Just some nitpicks.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
+/* Use hash_32 when possible to
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 20:33 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Hello,
Just some nitpicks.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:45:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
+/* Use hash_32 when possible to allow for fast 32bit hashing in 64bit
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
({\
sizeof(val) = 4 ? hash_32(val, bits) : hash_long(val, bits); \
})
Is the better way to go. We are C programmers, we like to see the ?: on
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 18:25 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
({\
sizeof(val) = 4 ? hash_32(val, bits) : hash_long(val, bits); \
})
Is the
Hi Linus,
But whatever. This series has gotten way too much bike-shedding
anyway. I think it should just be applied, since it does remove lines
of code overall. I'd even possibly apply it to mainline, but it seems
to be against linux-next.
Yup, I switched to using -next because I've been
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com wrote:
I can either rebase that on top of mainline, or we can ask maintainers
to take it to their own trees if you take only 01/16 into mainline.
What would you prefer?
I don't really care deeply. The only reason to merge it
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 06:25:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
But whatever. This series has gotten way too much bike-shedding
anyway. I think it should just be applied, since it does remove lines
of code overall. I'd even possibly apply it to mainline, but it seems
to be against linux-next.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
BTW, how serious have you been back at KS when you were talking about
pull requests killing a thousand of lines of code being acceptable
at any point in the cycle?
Well... I'm absolutely a lot more open to pull requests
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 07:48:19PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
BTW, how serious have you been back at KS when you were talking about
pull requests killing a thousand of lines of code being acceptable
at any point in
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
Oh, well... there go my blackmail plans ;-) Seriously, though, I'm at loss
regarding several embedded architectures - arch/score, in particular,
seems to be completely orphaned.
Don't worry about it. Do a best-effort,
32 matches
Mail list logo
