Re: [PATCH] Introduce nodemask_t ADT [0/7]

[Nick Piggin]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 08:19:54PM -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
>
> > Find by me if folks have their dirty laundry.  There are limits to my
> > powers to set things right.
> > Sorry to have provoked your length explanation of physical_balance, but
> > in the version of the kernel that I happened to do my research on,
> > 2.6.3-rc1-mm1, this is _dead_ code.  The variable physical_balance is
> > never read, just written, and only appears on 3 lines total.
> > Obviously if it is in use in current versions of the kernel, then it's
> > not dead code anymore (at least not without a more profound
> > understanding of what's going on, which I make no claims to).
>
> There's probably something in -mm reducing its use that I haven't
> looked at; the digression there was based on mainline.

I think it is my patch that makes cpu_sibling_map a cpumask.

You don't need a special case for num_siblings == 2 anymore.
I forgot to clean up the last trace of physical_balance.

-
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/