[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210322110737.221f4b78@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 11:07:37 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, valentin.schneider@....com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
swood@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com,
vincent.donnefort@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cpumask: Introduce DYING mask
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 19:30:37 +0000
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com> wrote:
> On 03/10/21 15:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> > @@ -160,6 +160,9 @@ static int cpuhp_invoke_callback(unsigne
> > int (*cb)(unsigned int cpu);
> > int ret, cnt;
> >
> > + if (bringup != !cpu_dying(cpu))
>
> nit: this condition is hard to read
Would
if (bringup == !!cpu_dying(cpu))
read better?
-- Steve
>
> > + set_cpu_dying(cpu, !bringup);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists