Re: [PATCH] lib/cpumask: update comment for cpumask_local_spread()

[Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>]

On 12/12/22 20:32, Yury Norov wrote:
> Now that we have an iterator-based alternative for a very common case
> of using cpumask_local_spread for all cpus in a row, it's worth to
> mention it in comment to cpumask_local_spread().
>
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> Hi Tariq, Valentin,
>
> I rebased your iterators patches on top of cpumask_local_spread() rework.
> (Rebase is not plain simple.) The result is on bitmap-for-next branch,
> and in -next too.
>

I had a look, LGTM.

> This patch adds a note on alternative approach in cpumask_local_spread()
> comment, as we discussed before.
>
> I'm going to send pull request with cpumask_local_spread() rework by the
> end of this week. If you want, I can include your patches in the request.
> Otherwise please consider appending this patch to your series.
>

It would probably make sense to send it all together, especially since you
went through the trouble of rebasing the patches :)

Thanks!