From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755017Ab1BJMox (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:44:53 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:40222 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751123Ab1BJMow (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:44:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:44:16 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Rusty Russell Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, anton@samba.org, Mike Travis , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PULL] cpumask offstack finalization Message-ID: <20110210124416.GE26094@elte.hu> References: <201102091608.59448.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201102091608.59448.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Rusty Russell wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > A few more obsolete uses of cpumask has crept into the tree; all easily > fixed. This is rebased onto your -tip tree and re-tested; it finally means > that we can detect obsolescent (and hence dangerous) cpumask usage when > CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y. It finally reduces the actual allocation of > cpumask_var_t to the number of cpus we actually have. Hm, could we get rid of the obsolete percpu APIs once and for all? The fact that they are still around cause the leakage into new code to begin with. > I assume you want these via your tree: they definitely need testing across > architectures, though the transforms are mechanical. Can do i guess - we can cross-test most architectures in -tip and via -next there will be more testing. No need to spread this out via a zillion maintainer trees i think. Thanks, Ingo