[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <de84c929-4005-b3eb-517d-615cdee1dbc3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 13:26:47 +0200
From: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
To: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/cpumask: update comment for cpumask_local_spread()
On 12/14/2022 11:47 AM, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 12/12/22 20:32, Yury Norov wrote:
>> Now that we have an iterator-based alternative for a very common case
>> of using cpumask_local_spread for all cpus in a row, it's worth to
>> mention it in comment to cpumask_local_spread().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Hi Tariq, Valentin,
>>
>> I rebased your iterators patches on top of cpumask_local_spread() rework.
>> (Rebase is not plain simple.) The result is on bitmap-for-next branch,
>> and in -next too.
>>
>
> I had a look, LGTM.
>
>> This patch adds a note on alternative approach in cpumask_local_spread()
>> comment, as we discussed before.
>>
>> I'm going to send pull request with cpumask_local_spread() rework by the
>> end of this week. If you want, I can include your patches in the request.
>> Otherwise please consider appending this patch to your series.
>>
>
> It would probably make sense to send it all together, especially since you
> went through the trouble of rebasing the patches :)
>
> Thanks!
>
Same here.
Reviewed-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Thanks,
Tariq
Powered by blists - more mailing lists