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;
Date:   Wed, 10 Aug 2022 01:39:44 -0700
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To:     Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cpumask: UP optimisation fixes follow-up
Message-ID: <YvNu0HvXkseAAr7D@yury-laptop>
References: <cover.1660066581.git.sander@svanheule.net>
 <YvM6LjJCMK4ZKrxK@yury-laptop>
 <b723f2a292e92a792df95b912404e8d8e8e5e5f4.camel@svanheule.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <b723f2a292e92a792df95b912404e8d8e8e5e5f4.camel@svanheule.net>
Precedence: bulk

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

Functionally not, but something is still wrong, right? :)

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.

Are you OK with this?

Thanks,
Yury