[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251110161111.GB278048@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 17:11:11 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>,
Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 07/20] cpumask: Introduce cpumask_weighted_or()
On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 02:29:59PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03 2025 at 14:45, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> > On 10/29/25 6:39 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> +static __always_inline
> >> +unsigned int cpumask_weighted_or(struct cpumask *dstp, const struct cpumask *src1p,
> >> + const struct cpumask *src2p)
> >> +{
> >> + return bitmap_weighted_or(cpumask_bits(dstp), cpumask_bits(src1p),
> >> + cpumask_bits(src2p), small_cpumask_bits);
> >> +}
> >
> > nit:
> >
> > We have currently cpumask_weight_and & variants.
> > Wouldn't it be better to name it cpumask_weight_or ?
>
> No. cpumask_weight_and() does weight(mask1 & mask2) but this does
The comment was about naming, notable: s/_weighted_or/_weight_or/g to
better match the existing _weight_and().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists