[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081119181743.GA31357@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:17:44 +0000
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
ink@...assic.park.msu.ru, starvik@...s.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
takata@...ux-m32r.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
grundler@...isc-linux.org, paulus@...ba.org,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, lethal@...ux-sh.org, wli@...omorphy.com,
davem@...emloft.net, jdike@...toit.com, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpumask: centralize cpu_online_map and cpu_possible_map
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 01:07:16AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> diff -r c8ab7f6fc5e8 kernel/cpu.c
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c Fri Oct 31 10:48:30 2008 +1100
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c Fri Oct 31 11:22:29 2008 +1100
> @@ -24,19 +24,20 @@ cpumask_t cpu_present_map __read_mostly;
> cpumask_t cpu_present_map __read_mostly;
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_present_map);
>
> -#ifndef CONFIG_SMP
> -
> /*
> * Represents all cpu's that are currently online.
> */
> -cpumask_t cpu_online_map __read_mostly = CPU_MASK_ALL;
> +cpumask_t cpu_online_map __read_mostly;
Just a question: in the uniprocessor case, does this mean that
cpu_online_map becomes zero or do we mark cpu0 as online somewhere?
I couldn't see it in this patch.
I'm just wondering from a review point of view whether this change
of initialization could have undesirable side effects.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
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