Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are not
> > allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken.
> 
> So the general rule is that cpumasks can have holes, and exempting one
> just muddles the water.
> 
> Therefore I'd call the code just plain broken.

Agreed. 

That macro is not really helping the readability of the code at all. So a
simple for_each_possible_cpu() loop would have avoided that wreckage.

Thanks,

	tglx