[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1001061623130.24920@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:25:59 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 6/6] x86: cpumask_of_node() should handle -1 as a node
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> I wasn't using the example to strengthen the case of the -1 behaviour, but to
> highlight that a complete fix would be more work and risk not making it back
> to -stable.
>
I don't think that we should defer a complete fix to the callers because
it's "more work." If you've identified places where -1 is passed to
cpumask_of_node() without being checked, I think those would be fairly
obvious -stable candidates themselves instead of this series.
--
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