Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:25:59 -0800 (PST) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [patch 6/6] x86: cpumask_of_node() should handle -1 as a node |
| |
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> I wasn't using the example to strengthen the case of the -1 behaviour, but to > highlight that a complete fix would be more work and risk not making it back > to -stable. >
I don't think that we should defer a complete fix to the callers because it's "more work." If you've identified places where -1 is passed to cpumask_of_node() without being checked, I think those would be fairly obvious -stable candidates themselves instead of this series.
| |