Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:05 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Friday 07 September 2007 05:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> Since the core kernel routines need to reference cpu_sibling_map, >>> whether it be a static array or a per_cpu data variable, an access >>> function has been defined. >>> >>> In addition, changes have been made to the ia64 and ppc64 arch's to >>> move the cpu_sibling_map from a static cpumask_t array [NR_CPUS] to >>> be per_cpu cpumask_t arrays. >>> >>> Note that I do not have the ability to build or test patch 3/3, the >>> ppc64 changes. >>> >>> Patches are referenced against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 . >> It would be better if you could redo the patches with the original patches >> reverted, not incremental changes. In the end we'll need a full patch set >> with full changelog anyways, not a series of incremental fixes. > > yup > >> Also I guess some powerpc testers would be needed. Perhaps cc the >> maintainers? >> > > yup > > All architectures except sparc64 are now done - please have a shot at doing > sparc64 as well.
Ok, will do. I didn't realize there was only one more that used the SCHED_SMT code. > > I'd suggest that we not implement that cpu_sibling_map() macro and just > open-code the per_cpu() everywhere. So henceforth any architecture which > implements CONFIG_SCHED_SMT must implement the per-cpu sibling map. Yes, with only one more to do it's not that daunting. ;-) > That's nice and simple, and avoids the unpleasant > pretend-function-used-as-an-lvalue trick. (Well OK, per_cpu() does > that, but let's avoid resinning). Yes, the per_cpu macro is quite the specimen. ;-) Thanks! Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/