[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51B7BFB0.8080401@sr71.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:24:16 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To: Youquan Song <youquan.song@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
youquan.song@...el.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: cpu hotplug: possible_cpus broken (again?) next-20130607
On 06/12/2013 05:03 AM, Youquan Song wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + /* return when cpu number greater than maximum number of
> CPUs */
> + if (setup_max_cpus <= num_online_cpus() + 1) {
> + cpu_hotplug_driver_unlock();
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +#endif
> from_nid = cpu_to_node(cpuid);
> ret = cpu_up(cpuid);
Your patch is line-wrapped.
Also, the #ifdef is unnecessary. If CONFIG_SMP is off:
static const unsigned int setup_max_cpus = NR_CPUS;
#define num_online_cpus() 1U
The compiler will take care of optimizing out the the if() without the
explicit #ifdef.
Also, the +1 looks goofy to me. Doesn't this do the same thing (and
isn't it much easier to read)?
if (num_online_cpus() >= setup_max_cpus)
--
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