In message <Pine.LNX.4.33.0206181701240.2562-100000@penguin.transmeta.com> you
write:
>
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >
> > - new_mask &= cpu_online_map;
> > + /* Eliminate offline cpus from the mask */
> > + for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++)
> > + if (!cpu_online(i))
> > + new_mask &= ~(1<<i);
> > +
>
> And why can't cpu_online_map be a bitmap?
>
> What's your beef against sane and efficient data structures? The above is
> just crazy.
Oh, it can be. I wasn't going to require something from all archs for
this one case (well, it was more like zero cases when I first did the
patch).
> and then add a few simple operations like
>
> cpumask_and(cpu_mask_t * res, cpu_mask_t *a, cpu_mask_t *b);
Sure... or just make all archs supply a "cpus_online_of(mask)" which
does that, unless there are other interesting cases. Or we can go the
other way and have a general "and_region(void *res, void *a, void *b,
int len)". Which one do you want?
> This is not rocket science, and I find it ridiculous that you claim to
> worry about scaling up to thousands of CPU's, and then you try to send me
> absolute crap like the above which clearly is unacceptable for lots of
> CPU's.
Spinning 1000 times doesn't phase me until someone complains.
Breaking userspace code does. One can be fixed if it proves to be a
bottleneck. Understand?
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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 : Sun Jun 23 2002 - 22:00:19 EST