Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 May 2019 10:32:07 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] cpumask: Purify cpumask_next() |
| |
* Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
> cpumask_next() has no side-effects. Mark it as pure. > > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> > Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> > --- > include/linux/cpumask.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h > index 147bdec42215..20df46705f9c 100644 > --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h > +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h > @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ static inline unsigned int cpumask_last(const struct cpumask *srcp) > return find_last_bit(cpumask_bits(srcp), nr_cpumask_bits); > } > > -unsigned int cpumask_next(int n, const struct cpumask *srcp); > +unsigned int __pure cpumask_next(int n, const struct cpumask *srcp);
I suppose this makes a code generation difference somewhere, right?
I'm wondering, couldn't it also be marked a const function? That's supposedly an even better category.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |