From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267795AbUGWPa2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:30:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267796AbUGWPa2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:30:28 -0400 Received: from cfcafwp.sgi.com ([192.48.179.6]:43305 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267795AbUGWPa1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:30:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:30:22 -0500 From: Dimitri Sivanich To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , Anton Blanchard , Andi Kleen , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] consolidate sched domains Message-ID: <20040723153022.GA16563@sgi.com> References: <41008386.9060009@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41008386.9060009@yahoo.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:18:30PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > The attached patch is against 2.6.8-rc1-mm1. Tested on SMP, UP and SMP+HT > here and it seems to be OK. > > I have included the cpu_sibling_map for ppc64, although Anton said he did > have an implementation floating around which he would probably prefer, but > I'll let him deal with that. Do other architectures need to define their own cpu_sibling_maps, or am I missing something that would define that for IA64 and others?