Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:57:04 +0100 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device |
| |
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are not > > allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken. > > So the general rule is that cpumasks can have holes, and exempting one > just muddles the water. > > Therefore I'd call the code just plain broken.
I'll say.
Can't the code simply do:
if (!cpu_possible(i)) continue;
?
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
| |