Re: [patch] scheduler bits from 2.5.23-dj1

Robert Love
2002-06-20T00:10:55Z

On Wed, 2002-06-19 at 17:07, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> obviously not. Supporting 4G cpus is enough for this century, so the
> other 32bit would be just wasted space. the 1 in the shiftleft needs the
> UL anyways to be correct with >32 cpus (it's not strictly a bug right
> now to forget the UL but if we get it right we'll be able to go 64-way
> on 64bit systems with no change other than NR_TASKS). So the bitmasks
> must be all unsigned longs, the cpu numbers are definitely fine as
> unsigned ints.

Eh, very true. I was confusing the bitmasks and the counts.

Sorry, Ingo - ignore me.

Robert Love