Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:54:40 -0700 | From | Mike Travis <> | Subject | Re: [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
|  |