[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:19:12 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid mask based num_possible_cpus and num_online_cpus
-v5
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:33:02 +1030
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:01:25 -0800, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > Though most of the callers of these two routines are init time (with few
> > > exceptions of runtime calls), it is cleaner to use variables
> > > and not go through this repeated mask based calculation.
> >
> > Looks good to me.
>
> But, I wonder who's asking num_possible_cpus(). It's not a very useful
> thing to know, though some arch's "know" it's contiguous, so can cheat.
>
> Optimizing it seems particularly foolish.
We're fools for optimisations!
> We either audit and wean
> everyone off who's using it incorrectly, or insist on contiguous CPU
> numbers and drop the mask altogether.
drivers/block/nvme.c looks like it's assuming a contiguous map. Maybe
also drivers/scsi/bnx2fc (wtf?). I didn't see anything else outside
arch code.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists