Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hello, Rusty. > > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 03:12:15PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: >> > Hmmm? cpumask_t can't be used for stack but other than that I don't >> > see how it would be deprecated completely. Rusty, can you please >> > chime in? >> >> The long-never-quite-complete-plan was for struct cpumask to be >> undefined when CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y. That means noone can declare >> them, or pass them on the stack, since they'll get a compiler error. >> >> Now, there are some cases where it really is a reason to use a static >> bitmap, and 1/2 a K of wasted space be damned. There's a >> deliberately-ugly way of doing that: declare a bitmap and use >> to_cpumask(). Of course, if we ever really want to remove NR_CPUS and >> make it completely generic, we have to kill all these too, but noone is >> serious about that. > > So, I guess this currently is caught in a place which isn't here or > there. I'm pretty skeptical whether it makes sense to bother about > static usages tho. Can I keep them for static ones? I didn't realize that cpuset_attach was a fastpath. If it is, put a static there and I'll fix turn it into a bitmap when I need to. Otherwise, please don't change the code in the first place. Cheers, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>