KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Now,
> for_each_cpu() is for-loop cpu over cpu_possible_map.
> for_each_online_cpu is for-loop cpu over cpu_online_map.
> .....for_each_cpu() looks bad name.
>
> This patch renames for_each_cpu() as for_each_possible_cpu().
>
Sane.
> I also wrote patches to replace all for_each_cpu with for_each_possible_cpu.
> please confirm....
>
> BTW, when HOTPLUC_CPU is not suppoted, using for_each_possible_cpu()
> should be avoided, I think.
Sometimes. Sometimes it's valid though - allocating (small amounts of)
per-cpu storage, summing up per-cpu counters (poorly), etc.
> -#define for_each_cpu(cpu) for_each_cpu_mask((cpu), cpu_possible_map)
> +#define for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) for_each_cpu_mask((cpu), cpu_possible_map)
Nope, I'll change this to
#define for_each_cpu(cpu) for_each_cpu_mask((cpu), cpu_possible_map)
#define for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) for_each_cpu_mask((cpu), cpu_possible_map)
So both are valid. That way
a) The kernel continues to compile at each step of the patch series
(important!) and
b) We can remove for_each_cpu() later on, after all the various
out-of-tree usages have been converted.
-
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]
