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

Nick Piggin
2004-06-04T05:53:42Z

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I'm all for the full cpumask abstraction.
>
>
> Where do we stand wrt pass-by-reference? I remember there was initially
> some concern that lugging 512-bit scalars around by value was expensive, so
> Bill's original work was at least geared toward pass-by-reference?
>

That is a valid concern. One I hadn't really thought about
as the patch is coming from SGI :)

kernel/sched.c doesn't pass around cpumask_t's anywhere
critical anymore (this used to be a problem). Any other
important places spring to mind?