On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:33:16PM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
quoted text
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> Here's an initial proposal for abstracting cpumask_t to be either
> > 
> > At least for some cases I don't think you'll get around defining
> > a "nearby subset of CPUs that can be handled together" type. Handling 1K 
> > objects all the time in one piece is simply not a good idea.
> > 
> > -Andi
> 
> 
> Every time I stop to think about this, the problems with the cpu
> operators come to mind.  Should there be a separate set?  Or simply
> conversion functions to/from a "cpumask_subset" type?  

A subset would be hopefully enough (set/isset etc.) plus conversion
operators.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com
--
unsubscribe notice
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/