Re: [PATCH] nodemask_t x86_64 changes [5/7]

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
> My current understanding of the complement op is that it is broken for
> non-word multiple sizes.  There's a good chance I'm still be confused on
> this matter.
> It might make sense to redo this particular bit of offline logic not by
> using *_complement, but rather by looping over all nodes, and only
> acting if not online, thus avoiding the *_complement() operator for now.
> I have not thought through the performance implications of such a code
> inversion, however.

If someone's not treating the leftover bits as "don't cares", then
there's a bug. Or so goes the current convention. I think originally, I
had avoided touching the bits at the end, then the "don't cares"
suggestion was incorporated). This doesn't appear to be problematic on
smaller systems. Any idea where this bogon might be?


-- wli
-
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/