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

Nick Piggin
2004-06-04T02:02:43Z

Rusty Russell wrote:

> We've discussed this before when talking about whether it'd be easier to
> just make people use raw bitop functions directly, so I know we have
> philosophical differences here.
>
> So, opinion alert: if I were doing this, I'd probably live without this
> macro; in my mind it crosses the "too much abstraction" line. I did
> momentarily wonder what this macro did when I saw it used in the
> succeeding patches.
>

I think if you don't like that abstraction, there should be no
cpumask type at all, just use the bitmap.

I don't see what you gain from having the cpumask type but having
to get at its internals with the bitop functions.

> But it's a minor nit; thanks for doing these.
>

Yeah it looks quite good