Dinakar wrote:
> > * The name 'nodemask' for the cpumask_t of CPUs that are siblings to CPU i
> > is a bit confusing (yes, that name was already there). How about
> > something like 'siblings' ?
>
> Not sure which code you are referring to here ?? I dont see any nodemask
> referring to SMT siblings ?
This comment was referring to lines such as the following, which appear
a few places in your patch (though not lines you wrote, just nearby
lines, in all but one case):
cpumask_t nodemask = node_to_cpumask(cpu_to_node(i));
I was thinking to change such a line to:
cpumask_t sibling = node_to_cpumask(cpu_to_node(i));
However, it is no biggie, and since it is not in your actual new
code, probably should not be part of your patch anyway.
There is one place, arch_destroy_sched_domains(), where you added such a
line, but there you should probably use the same 'nodemask' name as the
other couple of places, unless and until these places change together.
So bottom line - nevermind this comment.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.650.933.1373, 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]