Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 May 2005 14:02:13 -0700 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [RFT PATCH] Dynamic sched domains (v0.6) |
| |
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 <pj@engr.sgi.com> 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 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/
| |