On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 2:19 AM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/26/21 10:03 AM, Jason Xing wrote:
>
> >
> > Honestly, I'm a little confused right now. @nr_cpu_ids is the fixed
> > number which means the total number of cpus the machine has.
> > I think, using @nr_cpu_ids is safe one way or the other regardless of
> > whether the cpu goes offline or not. What do you think?
> >
>
> More exactly, nr_cpu_ids is the max number cpu id can reach,
> even in presence of holes.
>
> I think that most/many num_online_cpus() in drivers/net are simply broken
> and should be replaced by nr_cpu_ids.
>
Thank you, Eric, really. I nearly made a terrible mistake.
> The assumptions of cpus being nicely numbered from [0 to X-1],
> with X==num_online_cpus() is wrong.
>
> Same remark for num_possible_cpus(), see commit
> 88d4f0db7fa8 ("perf: Fix alloc_callchain_buffers()") for reference.
