lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/35] cpumask: Replace cpumask_t with struct cpumask
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote:
>
>> [Resubmit: cleanup and rebase on latest tip/master.]
>>
>> Redesign cpumask API to explicitly declare struct cpumask pointers to
>> the cpumask_* operators and add functions to make it easier to support
>> struct cpumask pointers on the stack.
>>
>> This patchset supplies the infrastructure going forward to implement
>> this new struct cpumask API. Many more patches (currently 58) have
>> been written and tested to verify the functionality of this API.
>> These will be submitted as soon as they are thoroughly tested.
>>
>> Compiled and tested on x86_64.
>>
>> Based on tip/master @ v2.6.27-6973-ga90cd11
>
> okay, i've picked up these patches into tip/cpus4096-v2 and started
> testing them.
>
Thanks!

> I fixed the From: line oddities - please holler if they are wrong
> anywhere, we can still rebase this.

I found two of them and had resubmitted them, but perhaps that didn't take
either?

>
> Note, i've merged this to _after_ the huge arch/x86/include/asm/ headers
> move which we sent a pull request for earlier today - this will simplify
> logistics.
>
> ( I also fixed up a handful of obvious style problems in various places
> - please be more careful about comment structure, whitespaces, etc. -
> they just distract from general review and hurt the merits of your
> patches. )

I ran all the patches through checkpatches, the only complaints were
about unavoidable items (like we had to use NR_CPUS or we had to introduce
two new typedefs). Everything else was error and warning free...?

>
> I also added "Impact:" lines to every commit - a one-line summary of the
> expected outcome of the change. (Please double-check those impact lines
> - if you see anything odd it means that i missed some detail in the
> commit - that will need to be fixed if it happens.)

Ok, thanks! I'll check them out.
>
> I've just completed the first basic step of testing: i did 68 kernel
> builds to test bisectability: all 34 commit point builds fine on both
> 64-bit and 32-bit as well. (This took some time as almost every commit
> touches cpumask.h, forcing a full kernel rebuild.)

Yes, my regression build for allyesconfig took about 11 hours.
>
> Ingo

Thanks!
Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-23 14:57    [W:0.216 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site