David Miller wrote: > From: Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:49:46 -0800 > >> Thanks for fixing it. In actuality though, it should return cpu_mask_all >> instead of CPU_MASK_ALL_PTR but that's a small nit. > > CPU_MASK_ALL_PTR is defined to &cpu_mask_all, that's why I used it, to > be consistent with the other macro using CPU_MASK_ALL right above it. It's not a big deal. CPU_MASK_ALL_PTR is one of those "bandaids" to keep current code working until it's all been cleansed of the old cpumask_t functions. Rusty's so-called "big hammer" patch. Thanks, Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
