Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sun, 1 Aug 2004 08:05:37 -0700 | | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH][2.6] first/next_cpu returns values > NR_CPUS |
| |
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Maybe the few callers that are sensitive to the precise return value >> should use min_t(int, NR_CPUS, ...) instead of all callers taking the >> branch on behalf of those few.
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 10:54:03AM -0400, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > The problem is that next_cpu(0) will assign the incorrect value of '32' > to variable cpu so when you exit the loop, you'll have some silly number. > This really should be covered in the API, especially since that's what the > API states is the expected behaviour.
I see. AFAICT this can also be dealt with by the caller and is far less common than total insensitivity to which value >= NR_CPUS is involved.
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |