[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/31] cpumask: Provide new cpumask API

    * Mike Travis <> wrote:

    > Mike Travis wrote:
    > > Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > ...
    > >
    > >> In what way will Rusty's changes differ? Since you incorporate some of
    > >> Rusty's changes already, could you please iterate towards a single
    > >> patchset which we could then start testing?
    > >
    > > Our timezones are not very conducive to a lot of email exchanges
    > > (and he's moving.) From what I've seen I believe he's leaning
    > > towards using struct cpumask * and less trickery than I have.

    actually, that's quite sane to do. const_cpumask_t looked a bit weird to

    the extra indirection to a cpumask_t is not a big issue IMO, so in that
    sense whether we pass by value or pass by reference is not a _big_
    performance item.

    The complications (both present and expected ones) all come from the

    > Oh yeah, I forgot the other major point of Rusty's approach. He wants
    > the patchset to be completely bisectable. That's far from true in my
    > version.

    well, it should be a smooth transition and completely bisectable,
    there's hundreds of usages of cpumask_t and quite many in the pipeline.
    It's far easier to _you_ to get this stuff to work if it's all gradual
    and is expected to work all across. Have a default-off debug mode that
    turns off compatible cpumask_t perhaps - we can remove that later on.

    with 'struct cpumask' we could keep cpumask_t as the compatible API, and
    could see the impact of these changes in a very finegrained and gradual
    way. Seems like a fundamentally sane approach to me ...


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-01 11:11    [W:0.032 / U:9.736 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site