On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 14:32 +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > One thing that was bugging me - I was never able to figure out for sure > > if smp_processor_id() returns a number in the range [0, nr_cpu_ids), at > > least I couldn't find where it was documented - could you tell me if > > that's true? > > I always assumed that it was in the range 0 ... nr_cpu_ids - 1 and that is > the assumption under which the kernel code was written. Things would break > horribly if smp_process_id would return nr_cpu_ids or higher. >
Hi guys, Just a heads up that I've put Kent's standalone percpu-ida patch (with Christoph's recommend changes) into target-pending/for-next here: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/nab/target-pending.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=47bd524a5b3eb6429b058b8b562b45329ab2c9e7 I've got a number of target patches that depend on this code for v3.12, and a delay on this particular piece would be painful to endure.. Sooo, please yell loudly if there is an objection to percpu-ida merge as a completely standalone item, that does not effect any existing ida code. --nab -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
