[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<SN6PR02MB415771568C1D449079456CB8D4082@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2024 17:34:55 +0000
From: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Dexuan
Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof WilczyĆski <kw@...ux.com>, Manivannan Sadhasivam
<manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Bjorn
Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 13/14] PCI: hv: switch hv_compose_multi_msi_req_get_cpu()
to using cpumask_next_wrap()
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2024 10:50 AM
>
> Calling cpumask_next_wrap_old() with starting CPU == nr_cpu_ids
> is effectively the same as request to find first CPU, starting
> from a given one and wrapping around if needed.
>
> cpumask_next_wrap() is a proper replacement for that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/pci/controller/pci-hyperv.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-hyperv.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-hyperv.c
> index 86d1c2be8eb5..f8ebf98248b3 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-hyperv.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-hyperv.c
> @@ -1757,8 +1757,7 @@ static int hv_compose_multi_msi_req_get_cpu(void)
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&multi_msi_cpu_lock, flags);
>
> - cpu_next = cpumask_next_wrap_old(cpu_next, cpu_online_mask, nr_cpu_ids,
> - false);
> + cpu_next = cpumask_next_wrap(cpu_next, cpu_online_mask);
> cpu = cpu_next;
>
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&multi_msi_cpu_lock, flags);
> --
> 2.43.0
>
I remember reviewing the patch that originally added this use of
cpumask_next_wrap(). The two extra parameters were really
hard to understand. Nice to see them go away!
Reviewed-by: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists