[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27240C0AC20F114CBF8149A2696CBE4A189F97@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:52:13 +0000
From: "Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/fixup_irq: Clean the offlining CPU from the irq
affinity mask
> > + } else if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, data->affinity))
> > + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, data->affinity);
> >
>
> You meant to use 'affinity' (instead of data->affinity) in the above 2 statements
> right? Note that we do chip->irq_set_affinity(data, affinity, true); further down.
>
Yes, I have noticed it, used data->affinity here is just for avoiding compile warning.
in fact affinity == data->affinity, but affinity pointer is const type,
And cpumask_clear_cpu needs non-const type,so here I am using data->affinity,
instead of changing code "const struct cpumask *affinity;"
Powered by blists - more mailing lists