Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:40:06 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] for_each_possible_cpu [1/19] defines for_each_possible_cpu |
| |
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> 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 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/
| |