Re: [patch 1/2] ufd v1 - unsequential O(1) fdmap core

From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Tue Jun 05 2007 - 16:58:19 EST


Ingo Molnar a écrit :
* Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

For example, the recent futex.c changes you did in commit 34f01cc1 are, and unfortunately there's no better word i can find: plain disgusting. You apparently have plopped the 'fshared' code into the existing logic via conditionals and have blown up the complexity of the functions for no good reason - instead of neatly separating them out. You have added _33_ (thirty-three!) new 'if' branches to futex.c! The feature you introduced is nice and useful, but for heaven's sake please work on cleanliness of your code some more and undo that colossal damage ... preferably before working on other areas of the kernel.
This code took the normal path for inclusion and discussion. If you find it so horrible, you should complained before. Fact is that you Acked it :)

yes, of course, i still think it's a good and nice patch, all things considered =B-)

If you wanted to make a joke, I find it quite misplaced.

no, i just wanted to make a demonstration that one can be pretty nasty in on-lkml replies while being technically correct :-) I think you went a bit overboard in your replies to Davide. Lets move this back into constructive channels, ok? :)

No problem Ingo. I am sorry you and Davide took my remarks so badly.
I tried to be constructive.

You know this stuff got my interest, since I even tested your file open-many-fd benchmark :)

I have some machines around with 1.000.000 file descriptors opened by one process. I even had to change NR_OPEN (1024*1024 was too small for me :) )

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/