Re: [PULL] cpumask offstack finalization

[Ingo Molnar]

* Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> 
>    A few more obsolete uses of cpumask has crept into the tree; all easily
> fixed.  This is rebased onto your -tip tree and re-tested; it finally means
> that we can detect obsolescent (and hence dangerous) cpumask usage when 
> CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y.  It finally reduces the actual allocation of
> cpumask_var_t to the number of cpus we actually have.

Hm, could we get rid of the obsolete percpu APIs once and for all? The fact that 
they are still around cause the leakage into new code to begin with.

> I assume you want these via your tree: they definitely need testing across 
> architectures, though the transforms are mechanical.

Can do i guess - we can cross-test most architectures in -tip and via -next there 
will be more testing. No need to spread this out via a zillion maintainer trees i 
think.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/