[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080911052125.GM7714@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:21:26 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, 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
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:33:16PM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
> 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?
A subset would be hopefully enough (set/isset etc.) plus conversion
operators.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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