Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Dec 2022 13:26:47 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] lib/cpumask: update comment for cpumask_local_spread() | From | Tariq Toukan <> |
| |
On 12/14/2022 11:47 AM, Valentin Schneider wrote: > On 12/12/22 20:32, Yury Norov wrote: >> Now that we have an iterator-based alternative for a very common case >> of using cpumask_local_spread for all cpus in a row, it's worth to >> mention it in comment to cpumask_local_spread(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> >> --- >> >> Hi Tariq, Valentin, >> >> I rebased your iterators patches on top of cpumask_local_spread() rework. >> (Rebase is not plain simple.) The result is on bitmap-for-next branch, >> and in -next too. >> > > I had a look, LGTM. > >> This patch adds a note on alternative approach in cpumask_local_spread() >> comment, as we discussed before. >> >> I'm going to send pull request with cpumask_local_spread() rework by the >> end of this week. If you want, I can include your patches in the request. >> Otherwise please consider appending this patch to your series. >> > > It would probably make sense to send it all together, especially since you > went through the trouble of rebasing the patches :) > > Thanks! >
Same here.
Reviewed-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
Thanks, Tariq
| |