Andrew Morton wrote:
Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
for_each_cpu() effectively is for_each_possible_cpu() as far as
generic code is concerned. In other words, nobody would ever expect
for_each_cpu to return an _impossible_ CPU, thus you are just
adding a redundant element to the name.
We've had various screwups and confusions with these things. I think the
new naming is good - it makes developers _think_ before they use it.
Instead of "I want to touch all the CPUs, gee that looks right" they'll
have to stop and decide whether they want to access the online, possible or
present ones and then they'll (hopefully) have a little think about what
happens when CPUs migrate between those states.
I think screwups probably came from unclear documentation (which it was
until recently, and some implementations were plain wrong IIRC), and the
recentish introduction of cpu hotplug.
I don't see the point in this though. If people don't want to even think
about these issues, then this change isn't going to make them.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
