On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 18:20 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
>
> How is this related to sched? And please stop writing lengthy sentences in
> the subject line.
> > From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Provides x86 with arch_update_cpu_topology function. This function
> > allows us to indicate that a condition is detected that the sched
> > domain of x86 needs a complete rebuild.
> scheduler domains are not x86 specific ....
> >
> > This is done by setting the x86_topology_update flag.
> So without reading the patch I expect that the function sets the
> x86_topology_update flag. Crap.
>
> What you really want to say is:
>
> The scheduler calls arch_update_cpu_topology() to check whether the
> scheduler domains have to be rebuilt.
>
> So far x86 has no requirement for this, but the upcoming IMTI support
> makes this necessary.
>
> Request the rebuild when the x86 internal update flag is set.
>
> Or something along these lines. Changelog is a important part of a patch,
> really..
Sure. Will do.
>
> >
> > +/* Flag to indicate if a complete sched domain rebuild is required */
> > +bool x86_topology_update;
> > +
> > +int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
> > +{
> > + if (x86_topology_update) {
> > + x86_topology_update = false;
> > + return 1;
> > + } else
> > + return 0;
> That lacks braces around the else path, but why aren't you just doing the
> obvious:
>
> if (!x86_topology_update)
> return false;
>
> x86_topology_update = false;
> return true;
>
> That would be too simple to read, right?;
Sure. Will do.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
