lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 3 Jun 2004 22:18:54 -0700
FromPaul Jackson <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cpumask 5/10 rewrite cpumask.h - single bitmap based implementation
> I don't see what you gain from having the cpumask type but having
> to get at its internals with the bitop functions.

There were a few places where arch-specific code had a cpumask_t type,
then took its address and operated on it as if it was a simple unsigned
long.   Where I was confident that I could correctly and efficiently
recode them using 'real' cpumask operations, I did so.  But in some
cases, I was not clear how to do this.  Grep for "cpus_addr()" uses to
find these cases.  The old cpumask implementation had similar macros,
including cpus_coerce() and cpus_promote(), for a similar purpose.

The "ideal" solution, in my view, would be to have someone with arch
specific experience in each affected arch code these uses of cpus_addr()
out, then remove cpus_addr() entirely.

Perhaps I should comment the cpus_addr() definition as 'deprecated'?

-- 
                          I won't rest till it's the best ...
                          Programmer, Linux Scalability
                          Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2008