On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:50:36 -0700 William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> | Core changes for extended cpu masks. Basically use a machine word
> | #if NR_CPUS < BITS_PER_LONG, otherwise, use a structure with an array
> | of unsigned longs for it. Sprinkle it around the scheduler and a few
> | other odd places that play with the cpu bitmasks. Back-ended by a
> | bitmap ADT capable of dealing with arbitrary-width bitmaps, with the
> | obvious micro-optimizations for NR_CPUS < BITS_PER_LONG and UP.
> | NR_CPUS % BITS_PER_LONG != 0 is invalid while NR_CPUS > BITS_PER_LONG.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 10:20:15AM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> Where/why this restriction (above)?
> I don't see the need for it or implementation of it.
> I'm only looking at the core patch.
I leave bits dangling otherwise.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:50:36 -0700 William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> | +static inline void bitmap_shift_left(volatile unsigned long *,volatile unsigned long *,int,int);
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 10:20:15AM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> Do you need this prototype? I don't see why.
> Rest of core looks good to me.
Probably not. I'll nuke it.
-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 22:00:24 EST