Re: [PATCH] lib/cpumask: update comment for cpumask_local_spread()

[Tariq Toukan]

On 12/14/2022 11:47 AM, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 12/12/22 20:32, Yury Norov wrote:
> > Now that we have an iterator-based alternative for a very common case
> > of using cpumask_local_spread for all cpus in a row, it's worth to
> > mention it in comment to cpumask_local_spread().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Hi Tariq, Valentin,
> >
> > I rebased your iterators patches on top of cpumask_local_spread() rework.
> > (Rebase is not plain simple.) The result is on bitmap-for-next branch,
> > and in -next too.
>
> I had a look, LGTM.
>
> > This patch adds a note on alternative approach in cpumask_local_spread()
> > comment, as we discussed before.
> >
> > I'm going to send pull request with cpumask_local_spread() rework by the
> > end of this week. If you want, I can include your patches in the request.
> > Otherwise please consider appending this patch to your series.
>
> It would probably make sense to send it all together, especially since you
> went through the trouble of rebasing the patches :)
>
> Thanks!

Same here.

Reviewed-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks,
Tariq