Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:51:38 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [cpumask_t 1/3] core changes for 2.5.67-bk6 |
| |
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:50:36 -0700 William Lee Irwin III wrote: > | Core changes for extended cpu masks. Basically use a machine word > | #if NR_CPUS < BITS_PER_LONG, otherwise, use a structure with an array > | of unsigned longs for it. Sprinkle it around the scheduler and a few > | other odd places that play with the cpu bitmasks. Back-ended by a > | bitmap ADT capable of dealing with arbitrary-width bitmaps, with the > | obvious micro-optimizations for NR_CPUS < BITS_PER_LONG and UP. > | NR_CPUS % BITS_PER_LONG != 0 is invalid while NR_CPUS > BITS_PER_LONG.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 10:20:15AM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > Where/why this restriction (above)? > I don't see the need for it or implementation of it. > I'm only looking at the core patch.
I leave bits dangling otherwise.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:50:36 -0700 William Lee Irwin III wrote: > | +static inline void bitmap_shift_left(volatile unsigned long *,volatile unsigned long *,int,int);
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 10:20:15AM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > Do you need this prototype? I don't see why. > Rest of core looks good to me.
Probably not. I'll nuke it.
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |