[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20111130161131.31cdccff.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:11:31 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] specific do_timer_cpu value for nohz off mode
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:29:59 -0600
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com> wrote:
> +static ssize_t sysfs_store_do_timer_cpu(struct sys_device *dev,
> + struct sysdev_attribute *attr,
> + const char *buf, size_t size)
> +{
> + struct sysdev_ext_attribute *ea = SYSDEV_TO_EXT_ATTR(attr);
> + unsigned int new;
> + int rv;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
> + /* nohz mode not supported */
> + if (tick_nohz_enabled)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +#endif
> +
> + rv = kstrtouint(buf, 0, &new);
> + if (rv)
> + return rv;
> +
> + if (new >= NR_CPUS || !cpu_online(new))
> + return -ERANGE;
> +
> + *(unsigned int *)(ea->var) = new;
> + return size;
> +}
checkpatch tells us:
WARNING: usage of NR_CPUS is often wrong - consider using cpu_possible(), num_possible_cpus(), for_each_possible_cpu(), etc
I think the check can just be removed? Surely cpu_online(1000000000)
will return false?
--
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