From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263182AbTDRRJD (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:09:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263184AbTDRRJD (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:09:03 -0400 Received: from air-2.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:51091 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263182AbTDRRI6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:08:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:20:15 -0700 From: "Randy.Dunlap" To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [cpumask_t 1/3] core changes for 2.5.67-bk6 Message-Id: <20030418102015.2527ff40.rddunlap@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20030415225036.GE12487@holomorphy.com> References: <20030415225036.GE12487@holomorphy.com> Organization: OSDL X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.11 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:50:36 -0700 William Lee Irwin III wrote: | Core changes for extended cpu masks. Basically use a machine word | #if NR_CPUS < BITS_PER_LONG, otherwise, use a structure with an array | of unsigned longs for it. Sprinkle it around the scheduler and a few | other odd places that play with the cpu bitmasks. Back-ended by a | bitmap ADT capable of dealing with arbitrary-width bitmaps, with the | obvious micro-optimizations for NR_CPUS < BITS_PER_LONG and UP. | | NR_CPUS % BITS_PER_LONG != 0 is invalid while NR_CPUS > BITS_PER_LONG. Where/why this restriction (above)? I don't see the need for it or implementation of it. I'm only looking at the core patch. | diff -urpN linux-2.5.67-bk6/include/linux/bitmap.h cpu-2.5.67-bk6-1/include/linux/bitmap.h | --- linux-2.5.67-bk6/include/linux/bitmap.h 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000000000 -0800 | +++ cpu-2.5.67-bk6-1/include/linux/bitmap.h 2003-04-15 14:39:40.000000000 -0700 | +static inline void bitmap_shift_left(volatile unsigned long *,volatile unsigned long *,int,int); Do you need this prototype? I don't see why. Rest of core looks good to me. -- ~Randy