Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:46:27 -0700 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpumask 5/10 rewrite cpumask.h - single bitmap based implementation |
| |
William wrote: > I don't really care about the particular format exported to userspace, > but cpus_addr() is not a legitimate API.
I'd like to thank-you for pointing out cpus_addr() to me several months ago, when I unwittingly proposed to replace it, with something else of a different name, doing the same thing.
I agree it is not legitimate - to the extent that it remains, the cleanup of cpumasks is not yet complete. Though, with my patch set of this week, I think we're making good progress.
I am a little puzzled at the strength of your latest objections to it. For all I know, it may well be your own invention. It's been there a while, since before my time with this code.
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |