Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

[Borislav Petkov]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are not
> > allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken.
> 
> So the general rule is that cpumasks can have holes, and exempting one
> just muddles the water.
> 
> Therefore I'd call the code just plain broken.

I'll say.

Can't the code simply do:

	if (!cpu_possible(i))
		continue;

?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.