Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:46:35 -0700 | From | Mike Travis <> | Subject | Re: [git pull] cpus4096 fixes |
| |
Rusty Russell wrote: > On Monday 28 July 2008 06:15:26 Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> Please pull the latest cpus4096-fixes git tree from: >> No. Not without explanations. >> >> Quite frankly, this "fix" looks like a huge stinking pile of sh*t. >> >> I can't follow that thread on lkml.org (horrible web interface with >> hard-to-follow threading), and I'm too lazy to bother to look in my lkml >> email archives, but whoever said >> >> "The simple version is just a static array of [NR_CPUS] cpumask_t's." >> >> and then implemented this piece of shit is a complete and utter moron. > > How awesome, Linus is talking about me! > > Your idea is clever, thanks. This patch was a bandaid to save us from the > unbearably fugly "cpumask_of_cpu_ptr_declare(cpu_mask)". I was going to rip > this code out as soon as possible, but with your trick we should keep it. > > The 4k CPU patches have been sliding in without review up until now. We need > a serious think about how to handle cpumask_t that doesn't fit on the stack. > > Hey, since Mike put his Signed-off-by above mine and didn't put a From line > when he took my patch, WFT am I taking responsibility? :) > > Rusty.
Just so I don't make the same mistake, this:
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
Should have been this:
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
?
Thanks, Mike
| |