[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601271822190.3886@nanos>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 18:24:22 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] getcpu_cache system call: cache CPU number
of running thread
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Josh Triplett wrote:
> With the dynamic allocation removed, this seems sensible to me. One
> minor nit: s/int32_t/uint32_t/g, since a location intended to hold a CPU
> number should never need to hold a negative number.
You try to block the future of computing: https://lwn.net/Articles/638673/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists