On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 08:28:56PM +0100, Beata Michalska wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 06:23:29PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 09:16:34AM -0500, Yury Norov wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 02:10:25PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 12:49:34AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:35:02 +0100 Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I'm currently testing a proper fix for that one. > > > > > > Should I just send it over as a diff to apply or rather a proper 'fixes' patch? > > > > > > > > > > Maybe a proper 'fixes' patch, please, if easy - otherwise a diff is > > > > > fine. > > > > > > > > I just talked to Beata off-list. I think she'll try to use the current > > > > for_each_cpu_wrap() API and avoid conflicts with the cpumask_next_wrap() > > > > API change. > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Yes, for_each() loops are always preferable over opencoded iterating. > > > Please feel free to CC me in case I can help. > > > > Beata is going to post the official fix but in the meantime, to avoid > > breaking next, I'll add my temporary fix: > > > Just posted the fix [1]. > Thank you all. > > --- > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20250218192412.2072619-1-beata.michalska@xxxxxxx/T/#u Great, thanks. I'll queue it tomorrow. -- Catalin
