From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933746AbcA0QY5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:24:57 -0500 Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:33780 "EHLO mail-ob0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932256AbcA0QYy (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:24:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160126185116.GA11676@kernel.org> References: <1452807977-8069-1-git-send-email-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> <1452807977-8069-21-git-send-email-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> <20160125211242.GF22501@kernel.org> <20160125212955.GG22501@kernel.org> <20160126185116.GA11676@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:24:53 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 20/23] perf tools: making function set_max_cpu_num() non static From: Mathieu Poirier To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Peter Zijlstra Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 26 January 2016 at 11:51, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:08:21AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier escreveu: >> On 25 January 2016 at 14:29, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >> > Em Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 06:12:42PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: >> >> Em Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 01:46:22PM -0700, Mathieu Poirier escreveu: >> >> > On 14 January 2016 at 14:46, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >> >> > I can't queue this patch for 4.6 without at least a reviewed by from you. >> >> >> >> This one I remember, looks ugly, the name set_max_cpu_num() looks >> >> strange, when that was restricted (static) to that cpumap.c file, it >> >> wasn't a problem, exporting it for wider usage looks bad. >> >> >> >> You've been waiting for this for quite a while, it seems, lemme stop >> >> what I am doing to check this... >> > >> > So, please check the patch below, what you need then is just to use >> > cpu__max_cpu(). >> >> I like your approach - thanks for the review. I will spin V9 when I >> have received Adrian's comments. > > I'll take that as an Acked-by: and since this improves the current > situation by hiding needlessly exported global variables, I'll get it in > now, thanks. I would have added this code in my patchset with the right authorship - whatever works best for you. Thanks, Mathieu > > - Arnaldo