Re: [PATCH] fix ACPI induced voyager compile failure

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: James Bottomley
Date: Friday, October 31, 2008 - 10:42 am

On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 23:16 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: 

Voyager has a max of 32 actually. The CPU numbering is also fixed and
identifies the processor position (for FRU replacement), so the physical
map is what we use throughout the code.  The problem with the definition
is that it makes a rather pointless distinction between physical and
logical map types ... so there'd be a lot of code churn.   It would be
really nice if physmask_t and cpumask_t could become the same type ...
then we could do all this and no-one would notice.

James


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] fix ACPI induced voyager compile failure, James Bottomley, (Thu Oct 30, 2:01 pm)
Re: [PATCH] fix ACPI induced voyager compile failure, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Oct 30, 2:58 pm)
Re: [PATCH] fix ACPI induced voyager compile failure, James Bottomley, (Thu Oct 30, 3:04 pm)
Re: [PATCH] fix ACPI induced voyager compile failure, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Oct 30, 3:16 pm)
Re: [PATCH] fix ACPI induced voyager compile failure, James Bottomley, (Fri Oct 31, 10:42 am)
Re: [PATCH] fix ACPI induced voyager compile failure, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Nov 3, 3:02 am)