* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

quoted text
> > > NAK
> > 
> > Yeah, I really agree as well.  But I wanted to start playing with 
> > using cpumask_t pointers in some fairly straight forward manner.  
> > Linus's and Ingo's suggestion to just bite the bullet and redefine 
> > the cpumask_t would force a lot of changes to be made, but perhaps 
> > that's really the way to go.
> 
> I much prefer that approach!

seconded. Mike, since none of this is v2.6.27 material, lets do it right 
with a v2.6.28 target. You know all the cpumask_t using code sites 
inside out already, so the know-how is all available already :-) Please 
make it finegrained series of patches so that we can resolve conflicts 
with other trees more easily.

perhaps propose the new cpumask_t API early (in this thread?), so that 
people can comment on it before NAKs come flying against a full patchset 
;-)

	Ingo
--
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/