Re: [PATCH] lib/cpumask: update comment for cpumask_local_spread()

[Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@gmail.com>]

On 12/14/2022 11:47 AM, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 12/12/22 20:32, Yury Norov wrote:
>> Now that we have an iterator-based alternative for a very common case
>> of using cpumask_local_spread for all cpus in a row, it's worth to
>> mention it in comment to cpumask_local_spread().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Hi Tariq, Valentin,
>>
>> I rebased your iterators patches on top of cpumask_local_spread() rework.
>> (Rebase is not plain simple.) The result is on bitmap-for-next branch,
>> and in -next too.
>>
> 
> I had a look, LGTM.
> 
>> This patch adds a note on alternative approach in cpumask_local_spread()
>> comment, as we discussed before.
>>
>> I'm going to send pull request with cpumask_local_spread() rework by the
>> end of this week. If you want, I can include your patches in the request.
>> Otherwise please consider appending this patch to your series.
>>
> 
> It would probably make sense to send it all together, especially since you
> went through the trouble of rebasing the patches :)
> 
> Thanks!
> 

Same here.

Reviewed-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>

Thanks,
Tariq