[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Introduce nodemask_t ADT [0/7]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:

>On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 08:19:54PM -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
>>Find by me if folks have their dirty laundry. There are limits to my
>>powers to set things right.
>>Sorry to have provoked your length explanation of physical_balance, but
>>in the version of the kernel that I happened to do my research on,
>>2.6.3-rc1-mm1, this is _dead_ code. The variable physical_balance is
>>never read, just written, and only appears on 3 lines total.
>>Obviously if it is in use in current versions of the kernel, then it's
>>not dead code anymore (at least not without a more profound
>>understanding of what's going on, which I make no claims to).
>There's probably something in -mm reducing its use that I haven't
>looked at; the digression there was based on mainline.

I think it is my patch that makes cpu_sibling_map a cpumask.

You don't need a special case for num_siblings == 2 anymore.
I forgot to clean up the last trace of physical_balance.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.071 / U:32.056 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site