[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201123144824.GA586782@google.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:48:24 +0000
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/14] sched: Introduce arch_cpu_allowed_mask() to
limit fallback rq selection
On Thursday 19 Nov 2020 at 20:39:07 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote:
> Ah, so in doing this I realised I don't like arch_cpu_possible_mask() so
> much because it makes it sound like a back-end to cpu_possible_mask, but
> the two are really different things.
>
> arch_task_cpu_possible_mask() might work?
Yes, making it explicit in the name that this is a task-specific thing
doesn't hurt.
Thanks,
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists