From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm: use modern cpumask primitives, no cpumask_t on stack Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:55:56 +0200 Message-ID: <493D357C.4090308@redhat.com> References: <200812072125.14416.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <493BF144.9080106@redhat.com> <493D300A.6080805@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Rusty Russell , kvm-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Travis Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:54781 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752917AbYLHO4E (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:56:04 -0500 In-Reply-To: <493D300A.6080805@sgi.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Mike Travis wrote: >> Since we're in a get_cpu() here, how about a per_cpu static cpumask >> instead? I don't mind the inefficient fallback, just the duplication. >> > > One thing to note is that when CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=n, then alloc_cpumask_var > returns a constant 1 and the duplicate code is not even compiled. > I'm a lot more concerned about source duplication than binary duplication. Rusty's patches resulted in a net reduction in duplication, so perhaps I should keep quiet about it. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function