Re: [PATCH] cpumask 5/10 rewrite cpumask.h - single bitmap basedimplementation

[Paul Jackson]

> I don't see what you gain from having the cpumask type but having
> to get at its internals with the bitop functions.

There were a few places where arch-specific code had a cpumask_t type,
then took its address and operated on it as if it was a simple unsigned
long.   Where I was confident that I could correctly and efficiently
recode them using 'real' cpumask operations, I did so.  But in some
cases, I was not clear how to do this.  Grep for "cpus_addr()" uses to
find these cases.  The old cpumask implementation had similar macros,
including cpus_coerce() and cpus_promote(), for a similar purpose.

The "ideal" solution, in my view, would be to have someone with arch
specific experience in each affected arch code these uses of cpus_addr()
out, then remove cpus_addr() entirely.

Perhaps I should comment the cpus_addr() definition as 'deprecated'?

-- 
                          I won't rest till it's the best ...
                          Programmer, Linux Scalability
                          Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.650.933.1373
-
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/