AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@lsi.com
RQ:
SSV:mhbs.lsil.com
NSV:
SSH:
R:<Maxim.Kozlovsky@lsi.com>
MAID:2
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/LSI/INBOX	0	861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010E3D238E@cosmail02.lsi.com
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:57:33 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@lsi.com>
To: "Kozlovsky, Maxim" <Maxim.Kozlovsky@lsi.com>
Subject: Re: Please review 34985
Message-ID: <20100323135733.06dcab57@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010E3D238E@cosmail02.lsi.com>
References: <861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010E3D1C94@cosmail02.lsi.com>
	<20100323134720.4d45da74@ripper.onstor.net>
	<861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010E3D238E@cosmail02.lsi.com>
Organization: LSI
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:53:57 -0600 "Kozlovsky, Maxim"
<Maxim.Kozlovsky@lsi.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Sharp [mailto:andy.sharp@lsi.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:47 PM
> To: Kozlovsky, Maxim
> Subject: Re: Please review 34985
> 
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:22:08 -0600 "Kozlovsky, Maxim"
> <Maxim.Kozlovsky@lsi.com> wrote:
> 
> > Change 34985 by maximk@maximk-3 on 2010/03/19 14:20:31 *pending*
> > 
> >         Add module exit function. Cleanup KPI_CPU_INDEX definition.
> >                Reviewed by andys.
> > 
> > Affected files ...
> > 
> > ... //depot/tuxrx/nfx-tree/code/sm-stats/kpi-api.c#10 edit
> > ... //depot/tuxrx/nfx-tree/code/sm-stats/kpi.h#8 edit
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> = Change 34985 by maximk@maximk-3 on 2010/03/19 14:20:31 *pending*
> = 
> = 	Add module exit function. Cleanup KPI_CPU_INDEX definition.
> = 	       Reviewed by andys.
> = 
> 
> nfx-tree/code/sm-stats/kpi-api.c
> 
>      line 380, didn't you say this is always defined now?
> [MK] I had some plans to use this for SSC user space code as well.
> For this particular code the macro may be not always defined so I am
> keeping the ifdefs.
> 
>      line 438, we should change this macro to be num_possible_cpus
>      or something
> [MK] No reason to change just this occurrence, SMP_MAX_CPUS is used
> in a lot of places

That's what I'm saying, change the definition of SMP_MAX_CPUS to
num_possible_cpus().  Makes it more portable for Phase Two.

>      line 762, i'm not clear on how this is going to work, but it's
>      my understanding that both of these macros will be defined. if
>      that's true, then these #ifdef's can be removed?
> [MK] See above.
> 
> nfx-tree/code/sm-stats/kpi.h
> 
>      line 31 uhhh.  see above?  i guess i was thinking of something
> else.
> 
> 
> 
