From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F9AC4332F for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 11:27:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237780AbiLNL06 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2022 06:26:58 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44424 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229463AbiLNL0w (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2022 06:26:52 -0500 Received: from mail-ej1-x62e.google.com (mail-ej1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B59C2DE3 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 03:26:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id u19so25243874ejm.8 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 03:26:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=8sI/OlmkzwMUT63/vUfwGkH9X64hzL0XvDl7sOCKGAY=; b=ju6DBtndp6BiutwgFkPxIr1Sb75NoMEnsbL6DFC5c06KCkZl0Ti0wwR3UEpZDNoTdt vsTkOnUeJ8VL/BWudUUMM9aQsMe+iQzN+B4ZYxkGRWGxLCtpgbRgiafdLQmbsNPC2/Kj L4oA3fKDyX+F3HoUuoLu3kiKuN+YC85n2Bj2aGfGe5pmWaRF9hqCIOScUzF/v85PHvCh viohLX0MEH8OHLkQYY6ZttlwGgaF2oYmV02lR4iDeKmcTEM6PQ7s4Xjvhv+xPgt0YWIo MaT4CLWzi6rJ9DHOoXnzWFXE9psl01pVo4KlXxMGLGKTK8PwfpgOENUbCui3rrwEnKX/ YAAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=8sI/OlmkzwMUT63/vUfwGkH9X64hzL0XvDl7sOCKGAY=; b=0IoXl1ktGFafFJIA5cLEqbShRaiJRili5qhjGhlPt2157QuBEgyFdkqqFlCRVVNuyp ehhd3SBqUv3Kad3RHaGrRfHriqALlEkMg2BZ4aQrWDL9q7PnbGXI0AOlwpWRQNEu8p1u Uw/UgkAAnQBI4T2lJetYa/lM1vkbhnBQTHEkDxA2I1q019MuI49prsaUgPzxVINs1UVx 0WJN+Kajf8drVSxWGWqD2zhe+ZsLGGbuPusiuyZR5HdjqWe/4xRMLfPfmcb37+2msVOB 4utXfl/pdT2ys8dt/c8HC81rtkVpMgq0km8idVNEWAqPdMtfVi9DbYKpdmfGDV4XJ40b 7S6w== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnP78GayIQOP11SBUtZfN0YWgsxmQcWmme0qPR2iWEjQDm/J7t8 +XcAWmxdoEnvavmhBCypQqknY3CinFw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf7surnWyhUxoaQKzR3B2Zc2wNPy7das2seVxoCXLARKI0Tawwv1VZTkOv/ok2tjm3dab3Vl8Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:7e86:b0:7ae:3a0d:9a58 with SMTP id qb6-20020a1709077e8600b007ae3a0d9a58mr24708800ejc.8.1671017209713; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 03:26:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.115] ([77.124.106.18]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id qx38-20020a170907b5a600b0078df3b4464fsm5813128ejc.19.2022.12.14.03.26.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Dec 2022 03:26:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 13:26:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/cpumask: update comment for cpumask_local_spread() Content-Language: en-US To: Valentin Schneider , Yury Norov Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andy Shevchenko , Rasmus Villemoes References: <20221213043248.2025029-1-yury.norov@gmail.com> From: Tariq Toukan In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 >> --- >> >> 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 Thanks, Tariq