Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 May 2015 10:23:06 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86: replace cpu_**_mask() with topology_**_cpumask() | From | Bartosz Golaszewski <> |
| |
2015-05-02 8:33 GMT+02:00 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>: > > * Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> wrote: > >> The former duplicate the functionalities of the latter but are neither >> documented nor arch-independent. > >> if (!has_mp) { >> - cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_sibling_mask(cpu)); >> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, topology_thread_cpumask(cpu)); >> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_llc_shared_mask(cpu)); > > So why does topology.h invent a new name for 'sibling CPUs'? > > At least in the scheduling context, 'sibling' is the term we are using > in most places in the scheduler - try 'git grep sibling kernel/sched/'. > > 'thread' is a bad name anyway for a CPU, even if we didn't have an > existing term for it.
Actually those macros used to be called topology_core_siblings() and topology_thread_siblings() until commit fbd59a8d1.
> So please rename topology_thread_cpumask to topology_sibling_cpumask > to not replace one inconsistency for another one ...
I'll prepare a new series.
Best regards, Bartosz Golaszewski
| |