Roger Pau Monné writes ("Re: Revert NR_CPUS=1 fix from 4.15 (was: Re: [PATCH]
fix for_each_cpu() again for NR_CPUS=1)"):
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:26:03AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Well, I didn't propose reverting (or taking this fix) because I think
> >
Roger Pau Monné writes ("Revert NR_CPUS=1 fix from 4.15 (was: Re: [PATCH] fix
for_each_cpu() again for NR_CPUS=1)"):
> At this point, should be consider reverting the original fix from the
> 4.15 branch, so that we don't release something that's build broken
> w
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:26:03AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.04.2021 11:00, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 04:52:47PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> Unfortunately aa50f45332f1 ("xen: fix for_each_cpu when NR_CPUS=1") has
> >> caused quite a bit of fallout with gcc10, e.g
On 01.04.2021 11:00, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 04:52:47PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Unfortunately aa50f45332f1 ("xen: fix for_each_cpu when NR_CPUS=1") has
>> caused quite a bit of fallout with gcc10, e.g. (there are at least two
>> more similar ones, and I didn't bother t
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 04:52:47PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Unfortunately aa50f45332f1 ("xen: fix for_each_cpu when NR_CPUS=1") has
> caused quite a bit of fallout with gcc10, e.g. (there are at least two
> more similar ones, and I didn't bother trying to find them all):
>
> In file included fr
On 31.03.2021 18:55, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 16:52 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Unfortunately aa50f45332f1 ("xen: fix for_each_cpu when NR_CPUS=1")
>> has
>> caused quite a bit of fallout with gcc10, e.g. (there are at least
>> two
>> more similar ones, and I didn't bother try
On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 16:52 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Unfortunately aa50f45332f1 ("xen: fix for_each_cpu when NR_CPUS=1")
> has
> caused quite a bit of fallout with gcc10, e.g. (there are at least
> two
> more similar ones, and I didn't bother trying to find them all):
>
Oh, wow... Sorry about t
