Hello, On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 11:39:04AM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Ben Hutchings reports: > > > > "It looks like the taskstats bug was introduced by 513e3d2d11c9 as that > > means cpumask_parse() may not initialise as many bits as > > cpumask_subset() compares"
I see, so that patch switched parsing and printing to always use nr_cpu_ids but left the comparison functions to keep using nr_cpumask_bits which may be NR_CPUS instead of nr_cpu_ids. > Okay, any conclusion out of this? Any feedback from the maintainers of this > code? We can switch back the parse functions to nr_cpumask_bits, or just get rid of nr_cpumask_bits and use nr_cpu_ids everywhere. The only reason we use nr_cpumask_bits is because on small configurations the constant NR_CPUS can be more efficient than having to read out nr_cpu_ids variable each time. Hmm... I'll restore the parse functions to use nr_cpumask_bits instead for now. The confusing part was the output results. Input should be okay even if we flip between nr_cpu_ids and NR_CPUS. Thanks. -- tejun
