[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080604150705.GC11300@solarflare.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:07:07 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cputopology: Add default CPU topology information [3rd try]
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 22:44:30 +0100
> Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote:
>
> > Define the macros topology_{physical_package,core}_id() and
> > topology_{thread,core}_siblings() in <asm-generic/topology.h> if they are not
> > already defined.
> >
> > Move inclusion of <asm-generic/topology.h> after definitions of these
> > macros in <asm-powerpc/topology.h> and <asm-x86/topology.h>.
> >
> > Change drivers/base/topology.c to use the topology macros unconditionally and
> > to cope with definitions that aren't lvalues.
>
> Can you please redo this against linux-next?
Will do.
> That tree contains a number of directly conflicting changes. In
> particular, linux-next introduces alternate implementations of
> show_##name and show_##name##_list in topology.c and from a quick peek,
> your change could make them go away again.
I don't see what you're referring to. The only things I'm removing are
the attribute list macros, which are unnecessary if the list of attributes
is constant.
> Please also enhance the changelog so we have some idea of why you're
> actually doing all this. What do we gain? Does it fix a bug? If so,
> what? etc.
I'll go back to the explanatory text from my first version.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists