[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72mWAP5ZuOGTXZ1=zTOR_Y2YuqV2i8PberOeWOkx3VL0ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:10:54 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/3] rust: Introduce CpuId and fix cpumask doctest
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 3:22 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Here is another attempt at fixing the cpumask doctest. This series creates a new
> abstraction `CpuId`, which is used to write a cleaner cpumask example which
> doesn't fail in those corner cases.
>
> Rebased over v6.16-rc1 + [1].
Given this is growing, should we apply something trivial right away as
a fix meanwhile? Or are you planning to send this as a fix during the
-rcs?
Thanks!
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists