On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 12:19 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > On 04/16/2010 02:29 AM, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > Use Generic Per cpu infrastructure for numa_*_id() V4 > > > > Series Against: 2.6.34-rc3-mmotm-100405-1609 > > Other than the minor nitpicks, the patchset looks great to me. > Through which tree should this be routed? If no one else is gonna > take it, I can route it through percpu after patchset refresh. Andrew has merged this set into the -mm tree. I think that's fine and will proceed to address all of the comments there as incremental patches. I have comments/requests from yourself: 2/8: seconding Christoph's suggestion re: generic function to add generic function to set per cpu node id; plus suggestion to use numa_node_id() in common.c::cpu_init(). 4/8: lose the "#define numa_mem numa_node". I'll need to rework this. Currently, one can access the per cpu variable 'numa_node' directly as such. I added 'numa_mem' [actually got it from Christoph's starter patch] as an analog to numa_node. I/Christoph wanted to eliminate the redundant variable when it wasn't needed, but not break code that directly accesses it. Maybe better to not provide it at all? 5/8: wording error in patch description. Randy D and Kamezawa-san: comments on documentation patch Kame-san: request for clarification in 3/8 Thanks, Lee -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-numa" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
