* Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> re-ping on this. Just making sure this wasn't dropped on the floor.
So I didn't apply it back when I saw your patch because I didn't see where you
addressed/analyzed the second paragraph of hpa's review:
"The downside with set is that it only sets a single byte,
* Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> re-ping on this. Just making sure this wasn't dropped on the floor.
So I didn't apply it back when I saw your patch because I didn't see where you
addressed/analyzed the second paragraph of hpa's review:
"The downside with set is that it only
re-ping on this. Just making sure this wasn't dropped on the floor.
P.
On 08/24/2015 02:22 PM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> This issue was noticed while debugging a CPU hotplug issue. On x86
> with (NR_CPUS > 1) the cpu_online() define is cpumask_test_cpu().
> cpumask_test_cpu() should return 1 if
re-ping on this. Just making sure this wasn't dropped on the floor.
P.
On 08/24/2015 02:22 PM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> This issue was noticed while debugging a CPU hotplug issue. On x86
> with (NR_CPUS > 1) the cpu_online() define is cpumask_test_cpu().
> cpumask_test_cpu() should return 1 if
This issue was noticed while debugging a CPU hotplug issue. On x86
with (NR_CPUS > 1) the cpu_online() define is cpumask_test_cpu().
cpumask_test_cpu() should return 1 if the cpu is set in cpumask and
0 otherwise.
However, cpumask_test_cpu() returns -1 if the cpu in the cpumask is
set and 0
This issue was noticed while debugging a CPU hotplug issue. On x86
with (NR_CPUS 1) the cpu_online() define is cpumask_test_cpu().
cpumask_test_cpu() should return 1 if the cpu is set in cpumask and
0 otherwise.
However, cpumask_test_cpu() returns -1 if the cpu in the cpumask is
set and 0
6 matches
Mail list logo