Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: Handle nodemask on UMP machines

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 11:34:55AM -0500, James Simmons wrote:
> For UMP and SMP machines the struct cfs_cpt_table are
> defined differently. In the case handled by this patch
> nodemask is defined as a integer for the UMP case and
> as a pointer for the SMP case. This will cause a problem
> for ost_setup which reads the nodemask directly. Instead
> we create a UMP version of cfs_cpt_nodemask and use that
> in ost_setup.
> 
> Signed-off-by: James Simmons <uja.ornl@gmail.com>
> Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-4199
> Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/9219
> Reviewed-by: Liang Zhen <liang.zhen@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Li Xi <pkuelelixi@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com>
> 
> Starting in 3.14 kernels nodemask_t was changed from a
> a unsigned long to a linux bitmap so more than 32 cores
> could be supported. Using set_bit in cfs_cpt_table_alloc
> no longer compiles so this patch backports bits of the
> node management function that use a linux bitmap back
> end. Cleaned up libcfs bitmap.h to use the libcfs layers
> memory allocation function. This was pulling in lustre
> related code that was not defined.
> 
> Signed-off-by: James Simmons <uja.ornl@gmail.com>
> Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-4993
> Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/10332
> Reviewed-by: Liang Zhen <liang.zhen@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Bob Glossman <bob.glossman@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com>

What is with this crazy two sections of signed-off-by?  If this was 2
patches, make it two patches.

If not, then don't do this.

Also, this whole series had no numbering, so I don't know how to apply
them, please fix and resend it.

thanks,

greg k-h