From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266114AbTLaEzb (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:55:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266115AbTLaEzb (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:55:31 -0500 Received: from dp.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:40617 "EHLO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266114AbTLaEza (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:55:30 -0500 From: Rusty Russell To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: akpm@osdl.org, Paul Jackson , anton@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ioe-lkml@rameria.de, William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make for_each_cpu() Iterator More Friendly In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:54:10 -0000." <20031231015410.A12194@infradead.org> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:53:36 +1100 Message-Id: <20031231045528.4E0C22C0CA@lists.samba.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <20031231015410.A12194@infradead.org> you write: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 12:26:34PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Please apply. Applies against 2.6.0-mm2 and 2.6.0-bk3. Yay! > > > > Anton: breaks PPC64, as it needs cpu_possible_mask, but fix is already > > in Ameslab tree. > > So what about including the fix in the patch? I don't think a fix in some > obscure tree is a good excuse to break an architecture in a stable series.. Because (1) they've done it already, in anticipation of this change, and tested it in their tree, and (2) it's a non-trivial patch, as they don't have a cpu_possible mask concept at all. FYI, the Ameslab tree is the main PPC64 public tree. Now, do you need me to explain anything else? Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.