On 14-03-19, 11:55, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:16 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But some of them need to combine the new cpumask with > cpu_online_mask() to get what would be policy->cpus effectively. That > would be avoidable if you passed the policy pointer to them. Right, that's what I also thought after your previous email. Will pass the policy pointer instead. -- viresh
