On Tue, May 14 2024 at 10:31, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, May 13 2024 at 15:01, Yury Norov wrote: >> Some functions in the file call cpumask_equal() with src1p == src2p. >> We can obviously just skip comparison entirely in this case. >> >> This patch fixes cpumask_equal invocations when boot-test or LTP detect >> such condition. > > Please write your changelogs in imperative mood. > > git grep 'This patch' Documentation/process/ > > Also please see Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst > >> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> kernel/time/tick-common.c | 15 +++++++++++---- >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-common.c b/kernel/time/tick-common.c >> index d88b13076b79..b31fef292833 100644 >> --- a/kernel/time/tick-common.c >> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-common.c >> @@ -253,7 +253,8 @@ static void tick_setup_device(struct tick_device *td, >> * When the device is not per cpu, pin the interrupt to the >> * current cpu: >> */ >> - if (!cpumask_equal(newdev->cpumask, cpumask)) >> + if (newdev->cpumask != cpumask && >> + !cpumask_equal(newdev->cpumask, cpumask)) >> irq_set_affinity(newdev->irq, cpumask); > > I'm not seeing the benefit. This is slow path setup code so the extra > comparison does not really buy anything aside of malformatted line > breaks. Instead of sprinkling these conditional all over the place, can't you just do the obvious and check for ptr1 == ptr2 in bitmap_copy() and bitmap_equal()? Thanks, tglx
