Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 9 Apr 2015 13:24:22 -0400 | From | Chris Metcalf <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] nohz: add tick_nohz_full_cpumask_or() and _andnot() APIs |
| |
On 04/09/2015 01:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 01:00:38PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: >> +static inline void tick_nohz_full_cpumask_or(struct cpumask *mask) > This still reads as if you're doing: nohz_full_mask |= mask. > > I think the suggestion done by Frederic is the right one, reverse the > lot, have: > > isolcpu_map_or(nohz_full_map) := isolcpus_map |= nohz_full_map > > Or just completely give up and just write readable code under an #ifdef.
OK, so let's go with v5 (in the other thread) plus comments on init ordering, then. I'll repost that shortly.
However, I'd still appreciate guidance on the naming, since I do have a patch outstanding to fiddle with cpumasks for nohz_full (in the other case, for the tilegx network driver irq mask).
So here's the obvious readable code snippet approach:
#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL cpumask_or(some_random_map, some_random_map, tick_nohz_full_map); #endif
Some possible names so we can macroize them to no-ops:
exclude_nohz_full_cpus_from(some_random_map); or remove_nohz_full_cpus_from(some_random_map);
include_nohz_full_cpus_in(some_random_map); or add_nohz_full_cpus_to(some_random_map);
or perhaps with better namespace prefixes, but more confusing to read:
tick_nohz_full_exclude_cpus_from(some_random_map); or tick_nohz_full_remove_cpus_from(some_random_map);
tick_nohz_full_include_cpus_in(some_random_map); or tick_nohz_full_add_cpus_to(some_random_map);
Any of these sound good? Any other ideas?
-- Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor http://www.ezchip.com
|  |