![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> 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 | |||||||||||||