Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Aug 2022 01:39:44 -0700 | From | Yury Norov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cpumask: UP optimisation fixes follow-up |
| |
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:18:09AM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote: > On Tue, 2022-08-09 at 21:55 -0700, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 07:36:32PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote: > > > As an older version of the UP optimisation fixes was merged, not all > > > review feedback has been implemented. These patches implement the > > > feedback received on the merged version [1], and the respin [2], for > > > changes related to include/linux/cpumask.h and lib/cpumask.c. > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1656777646.git.sander@svanheule.net/ > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1659077534.git.sander@svanheule.net/ > > > > > > Sander Vanheule (3): > > > cpumask: align signatures of UP implementations > > > lib/cpumask: add inline cpumask_next_wrap() for UP > > > lib/cpumask: drop always-true preprocessor guard > > > > Acked-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> > > > > Applying at bitmap-for-next, after some testing. > > Thanks! Any chance to get this in for 6.0? I would rather avoid building cpumask.o only on 6.0, but > otherwise I don't think anything is functionally wrong with what is currently merged.
Functionally not, but something is still wrong, right? :)
I think -rc2 would be our best option for this, because this series is a fix to v4, and because it will let this spend some time in -next.
Are you OK with this?
Thanks, Yury
| |