On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 04:10:38PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Al Viro wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:15:24AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > > > > > > > > - *ti = *orig->thread_info; > > > > *tsk = *orig; > > > > + setup_thread_info(tsk, ti); > > > > tsk->thread_info = ti; > > > > ti->task = tsk; > > > > > > This introduces a subtle ordering requirement, where setup_thread_info > > > magically finds in the new task_struct the pointer to the old thread_info > > > to setup the new thread_info. > > > > Nothing subtle with it, especially since this is the only place with any > > business to call setup_thread_info(). > > Wrong, we could have multiple versions setup_thread_info() and every one > gets the pointer to old thread_info via the new task_struct.
How does that make what I wrote above wrong? We do have two versions, all right. Called from one place. Each is a one-liner in my variant, more than that in your. > > > What is your problem with what I have in CVS? There it completes the basic > > > task_struct setup and _after_ that it can setup the thread_info. > > > > Which buys you what, exactly? You end up with more things to do in > > setup_thread_info() and it doesn't get cleaner. > > Wrong. > > +static inline void setup_thread_stack(struct task_struct *p, struct > task_struct *org) > +{ > + *task_thread_info(p) = *task_thread_info(org); > + task_thread_info(p)->task = p; > +} ... and that does not fit "more things to do in setup_thread_info()" in which way? > > > Al, I would really prefer to merge this one myself, I'm only waiting for > > > the 2.6.13 release and since this is not a regression, I don't really > > > understand why this must be in 2.6.13. > > > > Fine, as long as that merge is done before your s/thread_info/stack/ > > patches. > > It should be the first step before doing 200Kb worth of cosmetical stuff > > that affects every architecture out there, not something that depends on > > it done. > > Please count correctly, there is only one 100KB patch, the rest is rather > small (50KB in 7 patches). ... no comments, except that 28K (ti6_1) + 24K (ti6_2) + 22K (ti6_3) + 12K (ti6_4) already appears to be more than 50K... In any case, that's hardly the point - s/200/150/ if you wish and that does not make the problem much better. > > There's also a question of having mainline build and work on the > > architecture > > in question, which obviously is not something you care about - this hairball > > had been sitting in m68k CVS for how long? Since 2.5.60-something, with > > zero efforts to resolve it, right? And mainline kernel didn't even build, > > let alone work since that moment. > > > > FWIW, essentially the same splitup of that mess had been posted more than > > three months ago; definitely before 2.6.12-final. Still no activity _and_ > > plans that involve doing kernel-wide renaming of struct thread_info * > > thread_info in task_struct to void *stack as part of m68k merge. > > Al, while I appreciate your iniative, could you please work a little bit > more with the other people working on this port? I did take and adapted > your patches and posted my versions of it and until yesterday you didn't > bother to comment publically. The "no activity" is complete bullshit. I seem to remember some very public conversations with you on that topic, but again, this is not the point - the real issue is with merge strategy you proposed. And no, I do not believe that doing that merge + great renaming in a single burst is feasible. Reorder that and yes, all parts make sense and are doable. With essentially the same final tree. Hell, I can even offer to do and feed the per-arch cleanups of that, getting the final chunk down to tolerable size. After and separate from getting m68k to work in mainline. To clarify the situation: this is _NOT_ an attempt to prevent ->thread_info cleanups from getting into the tree. I actually think that they do make sense; moreover, they do make sense on their own and mixing them with m68k merge only causes extra problems for both. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/