[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <496A72B3.8010105@sgi.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:29:07 -0800
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: sfr@...b.auug.org.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: cpumask change causes sparc build bustage
David Miller wrote:
> From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:49:46 -0800
>
>> Thanks for fixing it. In actuality though, it should return cpu_mask_all
>> instead of CPU_MASK_ALL_PTR but that's a small nit.
>
> CPU_MASK_ALL_PTR is defined to &cpu_mask_all, that's why I used it, to
> be consistent with the other macro using CPU_MASK_ALL right above it.
It's not a big deal. CPU_MASK_ALL_PTR is one of those "bandaids" to
keep current code working until it's all been cleansed of the old
cpumask_t functions. Rusty's so-called "big hammer" patch.
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