Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:46:22 -0700 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: more numa maxnode confusions |
| |
Andrew asked: > Revert what?
The immediate change Andi wants reverted only matters at present in Linus' bk tree. My main cpuset patch in your *-mm tree already does the reversion in *-mm (unfortunately - collision details follow ...).
So I presume that Linus' will apply Andi's reversion patch of earlier this evening to his bk tree.
But then when you pull in Linus's latest bk changes into your linus.patch, this will collide with my main cpuset patch.
Both patches will be trying to add back in the same line:
--maxnode;
to get_nodes() in mm/mempolicy.c.
My guess is that now that you and Linus know about this, you two can handle the collision by hand - both new lines of code agree on what's to be done: add the above line back in.
But if there is some other permutation of patches that I can send that would be smoother, let me know.
The one alternative I can think of that would allow everyone to put this back on autopilot and forget the details, would be to _remove_ the following segment of my cpusets-big-numa-cpu-and-memory-placement.patch:
@@ -133,6 +134,7 @@ static int get_nodes(unsigned long *node unsigned long nlongs; unsigned long endmask;
+ --maxnode; bitmap_zero(nodes, MAX_NUMNODES); if (maxnode == 0 || !nmask) return 0;
so that Andi's latest reversion path applied cleanly when it came back at you from Linus' bk tree. But I understand that usually you like to layer new patches, not replace or edit existing ones.
Go ahead and remove the above segment, if that seems best to you.
-- 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/
| |