Re: [PATCH] cpumask 5/10 rewrite cpumask.h - single bitmap based implementation

Paul Jackson
2004-06-04T05:12:31Z

> I don't see what you gain from having the cpumask type but having
> to get at its internals with the bitop functions.

There were a few places where arch-specific code had a cpumask_t type,
then took its address and operated on it as if it was a simple unsigned
long. Where I was confident that I could correctly and efficiently
recode them using 'real' cpumask operations, I did so. But in some
cases, I was not clear how to do this. Grep for "cpus_addr()" uses to
find these cases. The old cpumask implementation had similar macros,
including cpus_coerce() and cpus_promote(), for a similar purpose.

The "ideal" solution, in my view, would be to have someone with arch
specific experience in each affected arch code these uses of cpus_addr()
out, then remove cpus_addr() entirely.

Perhaps I should comment the cpus_addr() definition as 'deprecated'?

--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373