Re: [v2,5/8] NUMA Hotplug emulator

[Shaohui Zheng]

> 
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:13:30PM +0800, Shaohui Zheng wrote:
> > >This looks like an incredibly painful interface. How about scrapping all
> > >of this _emu() mess and just reworking the register_cpu() interface?
> > > Something like:
> > 
> > hi, Paul
> > 	I saw your reply on patchwork.kernel.org, but I did not find your email 
> > in my mailbox, you might forget to cc to me.
> > 
> Then fix your mailer. You are presently forcing Mail-Followup-To to the
> list, which in turn is dropping you from the cc on a group reply.

My mailer is mutt, and I did not configure "Mail-Follow-To", it should use the
default value. I add "set followup_to=no" to my ~/muttrc file now.

Hope it is got fixed, thanks you for your remind.

> 
> > 	I think that your register_cpu_node interface seems good, but this will 
> > remove the interface register_cpu. it is not the original purpose of the 
> > emulator, we want to emulate the oringal process, but we did not want to change
> > the old interface, that is a rule.
> > 
> Wait, what? How does my patch remove register_cpu()? It does no such
> thing, all it does is add a supplemental register_cpu_node() for you to
> call in to, without needing to carry any of the _emu() damage around. The
> old interface has not been modified in any way whatsoever.

I recheck your patch, It seems that I misunderstand it. with your function
register_cpu_node, we can call it in arch_cpu_probe, and then we need not the _emu()
any more. Our _emu() functions work, but it get thing complicated. :)

I will rework patch 4 and patch 5 with your suggestion, thanks.

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Shaohui

--
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/