On Wednesday 07 January 2009 00:51:20 Mike Travis wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > I think the complete elimination of cpumask_t should be the primary > > priority - before jumping to any other aspect. If we dont get rid of it it > > will stick around forever, like the BKL. It was a nice migration helper > > but now it's time to wave goodbye? :) > > > > Ingo > > I think that's possible for 2.6.30 especially with Rusty's "big hammer" > patch that removes the definition of cpumask_t. I have two config option patches. One removes the old deprecated ops. This almost compiles now. The other removes the struct cpumask and cpumask_t definitions. This breaks horribly. Wading through that is on my TODO. cpus_allowed in task_struct is fairly nasty. We'll introduce an accessor macro for that one I think since it's widespread (a "big hammer" is going to kill us all if we try it!). But I agree that we should get to that goal as fast as possible; it's the only real way to stop people introducing onstack cpumasks, copying them, etc. Cheers, 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
