Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Friday, September 12, 2008 - 3:58 pm

Mike Travis wrote:

If the performance difference isn't significant, then there is a major 
advantage to getting rid of a configuration option.  At that point we 
can basically scale to an arbitrary number of processors in a stock 
configuration.

	-hpa

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

Messages in current thread:
[RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Wed Sep 10, 3:47 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 10, 3:53 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Wed Sep 10, 4:33 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 10, 10:21 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Peter Zijlstra, (Thu Sep 11, 2:00 am)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Thu Sep 11, 8:04 am)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Rusty Russell, (Thu Sep 11, 9:55 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Fri Sep 12, 7:28 am)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Rusty Russell, (Fri Sep 12, 3:02 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Fri Sep 12, 3:50 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, H. Peter Anvin, (Fri Sep 12, 3:58 pm)