[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YxcK+HXLQ8WBS9Ee@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 10:55:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>,
Alexey Klimov <klimov.linux@...il.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] cpumask: cleanup nr_cpu_ids vs nr_cpumask_bits
mess
On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 04:08:15PM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> cpumask subsystem uses nr_cpu_ids and nr_cpumask_bits interchangeably
> despite that the variables have different meaning and purpose. It makes
> some cpumask functions broken.
>
> This series cleans that mess and adds new config FORCE_NR_CPUS that
> allows to optimize cpumask subsystem if the number of CPUs is known
> at compile-time.
Who will use this? Distro's can't, which means 99% of people will not
use this ever. Is it worth it?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists