From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751561AbWG0QS4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:18:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751756AbWG0QS4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:18:56 -0400 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:60326 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751558AbWG0QSw (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:18:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:18:43 -0700 From: Paul Jackson To: Martin Peschke Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Patch 1/2] CPU hotplug compatible alloc_percpu Message-Id: <20060727091843.c2192bbc.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <1153761414.2986.136.camel@dyn-9-152-230-71.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> References: <1153761414.2986.136.camel@dyn-9-152-230-71.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.3; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Martin wrote: > +static inline int percpu_populate_mask(void *__pdata, size_t size, gfp_t gfp, > + int cpu) > +{ It seems odd to me that this signature of percpu_populate_mask() has its last argument 'int cpu' for the !CONFIG_SMP case, but the SMP signatures have 'cpumask_t mask'. Shouldn't this function signature be the same for all CONFIG's? -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401