[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48C8593C.9080801@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:33:16 -0700
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
davej@...emonkey.org.uk, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Here's an initial proposal for abstracting cpumask_t to be either
>
> At least for some cases I don't think you'll get around defining
> a "nearby subset of CPUs that can be handled together" type. Handling 1K
> objects all the time in one piece is simply not a good idea.
>
> -Andi
Every time I stop to think about this, the problems with the cpu
operators come to mind. Should there be a separate set? Or simply
conversion functions to/from a "cpumask_subset" type?
Thanks,
Mike
--
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