* Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 01:50:22PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 05:43:27 pm Yinghai Lu wrote: > > > Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 07:23:52 am Yinghai Lu wrote: > > > >> so later could use nr_cpumask_bits in cpumask_size when MAXSMP is used > > > > > > > > I have a (more ambitious) patch for this in my queue, which weans it off > > > > this entirely: > > > > > > > > Subject: cpumask: avoid playing with cpus_allowed in powernow-k8.c > > ... > > > will be in .31? > > > > Hope so, it's been in linux-next for ages. The cpufreq > > maintainers seem to take a relaxed approach to patches, FWIW. > > With so much of the cpumask stuff going through Ingo's trees, I've > taken the approach that it's easier to just let it continue to do > so rather than cherry picking the occasional cpufreq touching > part. Well, now that the main (and most risky) cpumask changes are over and done, it would be nice to go back to the regular model. Overlap in trees frequently causes bugs, friction and general unhappiness. There's nothing cpufreq related pending in any of the -tip trees in this cycle. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
