Re: [PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection

[Rusty Russell]

Rasmus Villemoes <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 27 2015, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> But to be clear, it has outlived its usefulness, but it was not useless.
>>
>> In particular, there used to be a debug config where 'struct cpumask'
>> wasn't defined, so we could catch people declaring 'struct cpumask' on
>> the stack (or passing by value).
>>
>> There was a plan to remove CONFIG_NR_CPUS (ie. having no compile-time
>> cpu limit), but it seemed overkill and was abandoned.  But avoiding
>> 'struct cpumask' (not struct cpumask *) in the core wherever possible
>> was a step towards it.
>>
>> Hope that clarifies,
>
> It does, thanks! Should some of that be edited into one of the
> changelogs?

Well, you could describe it as "now-useless", since it looks like you've
got another rev coming anyway?

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/