linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lib/cpumask: update comment for cpumask_local

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y5n+V0bLGKko8vOR@yury-laptop>
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2022 08:48:23 -0800
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Cc:     Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, 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 Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 09:47:47AM +0000, 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.

Does it mean reviewed-by? If so - for the whole cpumask_local_spread()
series, or for the last patch?