On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 13:42 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Using atomic (LOCKed on x86) bitops for certain of the operations on
> cpumask_t is overkill when the variables aren't concurrently accessible
> (e.g. local function variables, or due to explicit locking). Introduce
> alternatives using non-at
On 11/02/15 13:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Using atomic (LOCKed on x86) bitops for certain of the operations on
> cpumask_t is overkill when the variables aren't concurrently accessible
> (e.g. local function variables, or due to explicit locking). Introduce
> alternatives using non-atomic bitops and
