On Friday 12 December 2008 07:14:09 Mike Travis wrote: > Re: cpumask conversions, or not? > > Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Tuesday 09 December 2008 21:26:36 Mike Travis wrote: > >> Rusty Russell wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> The new cpumask conversions are going well, but unfortunately Stephen > >>> uncovered a nasty bug via linux-next: the new cpumask operators only go to > >>> nr_cpumask_bits which can be less than NR_CPUS if NR_CPUS > BITS_PER_LONG. > >>> The undefined bits confuse the old cpumask operators. We fixed one case, > >>> but I am concerned that we will break archs as we convert more core code. > >> Hi Rusty, > >> > >> I think we can avoid this problem if we make cpumask_bits == NR_CPUS iff > >> CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=n. This complies with the current cpumask_t > >> approach and should cause all cpumask operators to always operate on > >> all cpumask bits. > > > > A very good point. And it's no worse than the old method. > > > > OK, forget about this for now, no urgent conversions needed :) > > Rusty. > > This probably should be submitted through linux-next for wider test coverage? Identical patch already in series. Thanks, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
