Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:00:46 -0700 (PDT) | From | Vikas Shivappa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/10] cpumask: Introduce cpumask_any_online_but |
| |
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015, Vikas Shivappa wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:17:08AM -0700, Vikas Shivappa wrote: >>>> + cpumask_and(&tmp, cpu_online_mask, mask); >>>> + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &tmp); >>>> + return cpumask_any(&tmp); >>>> +} >>> >>> You had a good example in cpumask_any_but() copy that. >> >> I saw the cpumask_any_but but wanted to avoid the for loop in the >> cpumask_any_but , but now i see why from your previous comment. Without the >> cpumask_t I will have to use the cpumask_any_but .. the two were related. > > It can be done w/o a loop. Hint, you need a static cpumask in your > code anyway.
Ah thats right, I always need the tmp mask. Confused this with avoiding the cpumask_clear_cpu line in the code vs. using cpumask_any_but.
something like this just making it static then ?
static cpumask_t tmp;
cpumask_and(&tmp, cpu_online_mask, mask); cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &tmp); return cpumask_any(&tmp);
Thanks, Vikas
> > Thanks > > tglx >
| |