Re: [PATCH 35/35] x86: clean up speedctep-centrino and reducecpumask_t usage From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>

[Ingo Molnar]

* Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 02:04:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>  > 
>  > * Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  > 
>  > > On Thursday 23 October 2008 13:09:01 Mike Travis wrote:
>  > > > 1) The #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU seems unnecessary these days.
>  > > > 2) The loop can simply skip over offline cpus, rather than creating a tmp
>  > > > mask.
>  > > > 3) set_mask is set to either a single cpu or all online cpus in a 
>  > > > policy. Since it's just used for set_cpus_allowed(), any offline cpus in a
>  > > > policy don't matter, so we can just use cpumask_of_cpu() or the
>  > > > policy->cpus.
>  > > 
>  > > Note that this cleanup stands alone; it's just that I read this code I 
>  > > couldn't help but tidy it up.
>  > > 
>  > > Ingo: do you just want to put this in your normal tree for sending to 
>  > > Linus?
>  > 
>  > hm, cpufreq stuff belongs into davej's tree.
>  > 
>  > i skipped #34 and #35 for now, we can live without them, correct?
> 
> If those patches are dependant upon the others, I can live with them 
> going through another tree.  There's nothing pending for 
> speedstep-centrino in cpufreq anyway.

ok - although the cleanups Rusty did look independent to me. We can 
just keep it in mind for the future, the whole topic is complex enough 
already as-is.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/