On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:44:51AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 16/04/2018 09:37, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 13-04-18, 13:47, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> Ok, noted. At the first glance, it should not be a problem. > > > > Why do you think it wouldn't be a problem ? > > Because we rely on the number to identify the cluster and flag it > 'processed'. The number itself is not important. >
In that case, why can't cpu_possible_mask be used for simplicity if all you need is the tracking and that need not be grouped under the "cluster" banner. -- Regards, Sudeep
