Re: [patch 6/6] x86: cpumask_of_node() should handle -1 as a node

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, Anton Blanchard wrote:

> I wasn't using the example to strengthen the case of the -1 behaviour, but to
> highlight that a complete fix would be more work and risk not making it back
> to -stable.
> 

I don't think that we should defer a complete fix to the callers because 
it's "more work."  If you've identified places where -1 is passed to 
cpumask_of_node() without being checked, I think those would be fairly 
obvious -stable candidates themselves instead of this series.
--
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/