Re: [PULL] cpumask: finally make them variable size w/CPUMASK_OFFSTACK.

[Ingo Molnar]

* Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Mainly because I didn't want to disturb the archs which don't 
> care at all about large cpumasks.  After all, putting a struct 
> cpumask on the stack is pretty convenient.

Yes.

> But we could add a new arch config which removes it, and set 
> it from x86.

Could we just use a single cpumask type, cpumask_t or so, which 
would be the *only* generic method to use cpumasks?

(Current cpumask_t would move to cpumask_full_t.)

This would be the 'final' destiation for the cpumask code: the 
natural type to use in new code is cpumask_t, while in special 
cases we could use cpumask_full_t - but the name signals that 
it's a potentially large structure.

On architectures that don't worry about large cpumasks (yet ...) 
cpumask_t and cpumask_full_t maps to the same thing, so there's 
no difference.

This would make things more natural IMO.

There would be no 'struct cpumask'. (and 'cpumask_var_t' would 
disappear too due to the rename.)

Thoughts?

	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/