Re: [patch 6/6] x86: cpumask_of_node() should handle -1 as a node

David Rientjes
2010-01-07T00:26:12Z

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Anton Blanchard wrote:

> I wasn't using the example to strengthen the case of the -1 behaviour, but to
> highlight that a complete fix would be more work and risk not making it back
> to -stable.
>

I don't think that we should defer a complete fix to the callers because
it's "more work." If you've identified places where -1 is passed to
cpumask_of_node() without being checked, I think those would be fairly
obvious -stable candidates themselves instead of this series.