From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754255AbYLHO4T (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:56:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752971AbYLHO4F (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:56:05 -0500 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:54781 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752917AbYLHO4E (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:56:04 -0500 Message-ID: <493D357C.4090308@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:55:56 +0200 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081119) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Travis CC: Rusty Russell , kvm-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm: use modern cpumask primitives, no cpumask_t on stack References: <200812072125.14416.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <493BF144.9080106@redhat.com> <493D300A.6080805@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <493D300A.6080805@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mike Travis wrote: >> Since we're in a get_cpu() here, how about a per_cpu static cpumask >> instead? I don't mind the inefficient fallback, just the duplication. >> > > One thing to note is that when CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=n, then alloc_cpumask_var > returns a constant 1 and the duplicate code is not even compiled. > I'm a lot more concerned about source duplication than binary duplication. Rusty's patches resulted in a net reduction in duplication, so perhaps I should keep quiet about it. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function