Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> could you please send whatever .c changes you have already, so that >>> we can have a look at how the end result will look like? Doesnt have >>> to build, i'm just curious about how it looks like in practice, >>> semantically. >> >> I will, and the full "allyesconfig" does compile. And it's basically >> a benign change in that the functionality is still the same. I'm >> currently reordering it a bit to clean it up. > > btw., are the resulting instructions also expected to be the same? If > yes then you might want to verify it all by making sure the md5's of the > .o's do not change. > > (If that's not possible (gcc decides to compile it a bit differently) > then no big deal, just wanted to mention the possibility.) > > Ingo Well, not exactly... ;-) It does institute the new API change that specifies only pointers to cpumask's can be passed to functions and returned from functions. I really wanted the default cpumask_t to be a constant so those instances where the passed in cpumask is used as a read/write temp variable would be caught. But it started getting messy. One pain is: typedef struct __cpumask_s *cpumask_t; const cpumask_t xxx; is not the same as: typedef const struct __cpumask_s *const_cpumask_t; const_cpumask_t xxx; and I'm not exactly sure why. It came up when I tried to declare functions that returned a constant cpumask_t pointer (node_to_cpumask, cpumask_of_cpu, etc.) The other major change I'm contemplating is to remove "cpumask_t" completely (maybe cpumask_ptr_t?). This would force every instance of cpumask_t to be examined. (I found quite a few I had missed in my original edits when I added the task struct temp cpumask's.) Oh yeah, one question ... is "current" always valid? Thanks, Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
