> 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. 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. 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). - 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/
