Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make for_each_cpu() Iterator More Friendly

[Rusty Russell]

In message <20031231015410.A12194@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 12:26:34PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Please apply.  Applies against 2.6.0-mm2 and 2.6.0-bk3.  Yay!
> > 
> > Anton: breaks PPC64, as it needs cpu_possible_mask, but fix is already
> > in Ameslab tree.
> 
> So what about including the fix in the patch?  I don't think a fix in some
> obscure tree is a good excuse to break an architecture in a stable series..

Because (1) they've done it already, in anticipation of this change,
and tested it in their tree, and (2) it's a non-trivial patch, as they
don't have a cpu_possible mask concept at all.

FYI, the Ameslab tree is the main PPC64 public tree.

Now, do you need me to explain anything else?
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/