Re: [PATCH] cpumask: fix lg_lock/br_lock.

[Andi Kleen]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 03:53:38PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:52:30 +1030
> Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Use a cpumask_var_t instead of cpumask_t.  We're doing plenty of
> > allocations here anyway, so it's not really an issue, and it sets a
> > good example.
> > 
> > (cpumask_t is obsolescent, as are the cpus_* functions).
> 
> Congratulations to yourself and Andi:

Well the only way to avoid that problem is to merge it ASAP.

The patch -- like most code movement patches -- is totally unsuitable for 
keeping around for months in trees.

Usually I found the best way to do merges with code movement patches
is to edit the patches itself if possible.

Maybe some day we'll get patch like tools that can deal with this stuff
better.

Rusty: you should probably have cocci rules for this stuff, not manual
patches.

-Andi
--
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/