Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <04eee9167a9ad5e5bf9a03db1ede005ae9e3710c.camel@svanheule.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cpumask: UP optimisation fixes follow-up
From:   Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 10 Aug 2022 10:42:38 +0200
In-Reply-To: <YvNu0HvXkseAAr7D@yury-laptop>
References: <cover.1660066581.git.sander@svanheule.net>
         <YvM6LjJCMK4ZKrxK@yury-laptop>
         <b723f2a292e92a792df95b912404e8d8e8e5e5f4.camel@svanheule.net>
         <YvNu0HvXkseAAr7D@yury-laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4 (3.44.4-1.fc36) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk


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 al=
l
> > > > review feedback has been implemented.=C2=A0 These patches implement=
 the
> > > > feedback received on the merged version [1], and the respin [2], fo=
r
> > > > changes related to include/linux/cpumask.h and lib/cpumask.c.
> > > >=20
> > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1656777646.git.sander@svanhe=
ule.net/
> > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1659077534.git.sander@svanhe=
ule.net/
> > > >=20
> > > > Sander Vanheule (3):
> > > > =C2=A0 cpumask: align signatures of UP implementations
> > > > =C2=A0 lib/cpumask: add inline cpumask_next_wrap() for UP
> > > > =C2=A0 lib/cpumask: drop always-true preprocessor guard
> > >=20
> > > Acked-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> > >=20
> > > Applying at bitmap-for-next, after some testing.
> >=20
> > Thanks! Any chance to get this in for 6.0? I would rather avoid buildin=
g cpumask.o only on 6.0,
> > but
> > otherwise I don't think anything is functionally wrong with what is cur=
rently merged.
>=20
> Functionally not, but something is still wrong, right? :)
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Are you OK with this?

Sounds perfect!

Thanks,
Sander