Re: [cpumask_t 1/3] core changes for 2.5.67-bk6

[William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:50:36 -0700 William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> | Core changes for extended cpu masks. Basically use a machine word
> | #if NR_CPUS < BITS_PER_LONG, otherwise, use a structure with an array
> | of unsigned longs for it. Sprinkle it around the scheduler and a few
> | other odd places that play with the cpu bitmasks. Back-ended by a
> | bitmap ADT capable of dealing with arbitrary-width bitmaps, with the
> | obvious micro-optimizations for NR_CPUS < BITS_PER_LONG and UP.
> | NR_CPUS % BITS_PER_LONG != 0 is invalid while NR_CPUS > BITS_PER_LONG.

On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 10:20:15AM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> Where/why this restriction (above)?
> I don't see the need for it or implementation of it.
> I'm only looking at the core patch.

I leave bits dangling otherwise.


On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:50:36 -0700 William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> | +static inline void bitmap_shift_left(volatile unsigned long *,volatile unsigned long *,int,int);

On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 10:20:15AM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> Do you need this prototype?  I don't see why.
> Rest of core looks good to me.

Probably not. I'll nuke it.


-- wli