[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130102153439.GA11220@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:34:39 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, paul@...lmenage.org,
glommer@...allels.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, mhocko@...e.cz,
bsingharora@...il.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] cpuset: cleanup cpuset[_can]_attach()
Hello, Rusty.
On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 03:12:15PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Hmmm? cpumask_t can't be used for stack but other than that I don't
> > see how it would be deprecated completely. Rusty, can you please
> > chime in?
>
> The long-never-quite-complete-plan was for struct cpumask to be
> undefined when CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y. That means noone can declare
> them, or pass them on the stack, since they'll get a compiler error.
>
> Now, there are some cases where it really is a reason to use a static
> bitmap, and 1/2 a K of wasted space be damned. There's a
> deliberately-ugly way of doing that: declare a bitmap and use
> to_cpumask(). Of course, if we ever really want to remove NR_CPUS and
> make it completely generic, we have to kill all these too, but noone is
> serious about that.
So, I guess this currently is caught in a place which isn't here or
there. I'm pretty skeptical whether it makes sense to bother about
static usages tho. Can I keep them for static ones?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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