[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160125185339.GB3628@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:53:39 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/22] kthread: Add create_kthread_worker*()
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:44:53PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> +struct kthread_worker *
> +create_kthread_worker_on_cpu(int cpu, const char namefmt[])
> +{
> + if (cpu < 0 || cpu > num_possible_cpus())
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
Comparing cpu ID to num_possible_cpus() doesn't make any sense. It
should either be testing against cpu_possible_mask or testing against
nr_cpu_ids. Does this test need to be in this function at all?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists