[PATCH v1 0/3] cpumask: UP optimisation fixes follow-up

Sander Vanheule posted 3 patches 3 years, 8 months ago
include/linux/cpumask.h | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
lib/Makefile            |  3 ++-
lib/cpumask.c           |  2 --
3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
[PATCH v1 0/3] cpumask: UP optimisation fixes follow-up
Posted by Sander Vanheule 3 years, 8 months ago
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

 include/linux/cpumask.h | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
 lib/Makefile            |  3 ++-
 lib/cpumask.c           |  2 --
 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

-- 
2.37.1
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cpumask: UP optimisation fixes follow-up
Posted by Yury Norov 3 years, 8 months ago
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,
Yury

>  include/linux/cpumask.h | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  lib/Makefile            |  3 ++-
>  lib/cpumask.c           |  2 --
>  3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.37.1
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cpumask: UP optimisation fixes follow-up
Posted by Sander Vanheule 3 years, 8 months ago
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.

Best,
Sander
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cpumask: UP optimisation fixes follow-up
Posted by Yury Norov 3 years, 8 months ago
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
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cpumask: UP optimisation fixes follow-up
Posted by Sander Vanheule 3 years, 8 months ago

On Wed, 2022-08-10 at 01:39 -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> 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?

Sounds perfect!

Thanks,
Sander