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;
From:   Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To:     Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        Gal Pressman <gal@nvidia.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] sched, net: NUMA-aware CPU spreading interface
In-Reply-To: <9b062b28-e6dd-3af1-da02-1bc511ed6939@intel.com>
References: <20220817175812.671843-1-vschneid@redhat.com>
 <9b062b28-e6dd-3af1-da02-1bc511ed6939@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2022 17:43:53 +0100
Message-ID: <xhsmhzgg1a4dy.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 18/08/22 09:28, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> On 8/17/2022 10:58 AM, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Tariq pointed out in [1] that drivers allocating IRQ vectors would benefit
>> from having smarter NUMA-awareness (cpumask_local_spread() doesn't quite cut
>> it).
>>
>> The proposed interface involved an array of CPUs and a temporary cpumask, and
>> being my difficult self what I'm proposing here is an interface that doesn't
>> require any temporary storage other than some stack variables (at the cost of
>> one wild macro).
>>
>> Patch 5/5 is just there to showcase how the thing would be used. If this doesn't
>> get hated on, I'll let Tariq pick this up and push it with his networking driver
>> changes (with actual changelogs).
>
> I am interested in this work, but it seems that at least on lore and in
> my inbox, patch 3,4,5 didn't show up.

I used exactly the same git send-email command for this than for v1 (which
shows up in its entirety on lore), but I can't see these either. I'm going
to assume they got lost and will resend them.