[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PULL] cpumask: finally make them variable size w/ CPUMASK_OFFSTACK.

* Rusty Russell <> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> I finally rebased this on top of your tip tree, and tested it
> locally. Some more old-style cpumask usages have crept in, but it's a
> fairly simple series.

Cool! Most of it looks pretty sane. I have a question about the
gist of the series:

> commit 898eb73305e2277be91b931c5a75484f8c87ae36
> Author: Rusty Russell <>
> Date: Wed May 9 15:01:15 2012 +0930
> cpumask: remove struct cpumask definition when CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y
> We're about to change CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK so it only allocate
> nr_cpu_ids bits for all cpumasks. We need to make sure that when
> 1) Noone uses the old bitmap ops, which use NR_CPUS bits (use cpumask_*)
> 2) Noone uses assignment of struct cpumask (use cpumask_copy)
> 3) Noone passes a struct cpumask (pass a pointer)
> 4) Noone declares them on the stack (use cpumask_var_t)
> So we finally remove the definition of struct cpumask when
> CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y. This means that these usages will hit a compile
> error the moment that config option is turned on.
> Note that it also means you can't declare a static cpumask. You
> should avoid this anyway (use cpumask_var_t), but there's a
> deliberately-ugly workaround for special cases, using DECLARE_BITMAP()
> and to_cpumask().
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <>
> Cc:
> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <>
> Cc: Mike Travis <>

Is there any good reason to not remove it altogether, regardless
of whether the OFFSTACK config is set? I mean, triggering build
failures for a relatively rarely turned on config option is
asking for constant maintenance trouble.



 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-09 11:21    [W:0.142 / U:0.256 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site