[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241228184949.31582-9-yury.norov@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 10:49:40 -0800
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: [PATCH 08/14] padata: switch padata_find_next() to using cpumask_next_wrap()
Calling cpumask_next_wrap_old() with starting CPU == -1 effectively means
the request to find next CPU, wrapping around if needed.
cpumask_next_wrap() is the proper replacement for that.
Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
---
kernel/padata.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/padata.c b/kernel/padata.c
index 454ff2fca40b..a886e5bf028c 100644
--- a/kernel/padata.c
+++ b/kernel/padata.c
@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ static struct padata_priv *padata_find_next(struct parallel_data *pd,
if (remove_object) {
list_del_init(&padata->list);
++pd->processed;
- pd->cpu = cpumask_next_wrap_old(cpu, pd->cpumask.pcpu, -1, false);
+ pd->cpu = cpumask_next_wrap(cpu, pd->cpumask.pcpu);
}
spin_unlock(&reorder->lock);
--
2.43.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists