Re: [PATCH] kmalloc_percpu

[Ravikiran G Thirumalai]

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 06:03:15PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <[e-mail]> you write:
> .. 
> Doesn't break with sparce CPU #s, but yes, it is inefficient.
> 

If you don't reduce NR_CPUS with CONFIG_NR_CPUS, you waste space (32 bit folks
won't like it) and if you say change CONFIG_NR_CPUS to 2, 
and we have cpuid 4 on a 2 way you break right?  If we have to address these
issues at all, why can't we use the simpler kmalloc_percpu patch
which  I posted in the morning and avoid so much complexity and arch
dependency?  

Thanks,
Kiran