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:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/cpumask: update comment for cpumask_local_spread()
In-Reply-To: <Y5n+V0bLGKko8vOR@yury-laptop>
References: <20221213043248.2025029-1-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <xhsmh359i71vg.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb> <Y5n+V0bLGKko8vOR@yury-laptop>
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2022 18:32:30 +0000
Message-ID: <xhsmhtu1w5xhd.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 14/12/22 08:48, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 09:47:47AM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 12/12/22 20:32, Yury Norov wrote:
>> > Now that we have an iterator-based alternative for a very common case
>> > of using cpumask_local_spread for all cpus in a row, it's worth to
>> > mention it in comment to cpumask_local_spread().
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> >
>> > Hi Tariq, Valentin,
>> >
>> > I rebased your iterators patches on top of cpumask_local_spread() rework.
>> > (Rebase is not plain simple.) The result is on bitmap-for-next branch,
>> > and in -next too.
>> >
>>
>> I had a look, LGTM.
>
> Does it mean reviewed-by? If so - for the whole cpumask_local_spread()
> series, or for the last patch?

Ah sorry, I meant I had a look at your branch for the result of the rebase
which looks sane to me.

Feel free to add
  Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
for this patch.