On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:24:40 -0600, "Matthew Wilcox" <matthew@xxxxxx>
said:
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 03:50:39PM +0200, Alexander van Heukelum wrote:
> > #if NR_CPUS > 1
> > -#define for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask) \
> > - for ((cpu) = first_cpu(mask); \
> > - (cpu) < NR_CPUS; \
> > - (cpu) = next_cpu((cpu), (mask)))
> > +#define for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask) \
> > + for ((cpu) = 0; \
> > + (cpu) = find_next_cpu_mask((cpu), &(mask)), \
> > + (cpu) < NR_CPUS; (cpu)++)
>
> For anyone else having similar cognitive dissonance while reading this
> thinking "But won't the first call to find_next_cpu_mask return a number
> > 0", the answer is "no, find_next_bit returns the next set bit that's
> >= the number passed in, which is why we need both the cpu++ and
> find_next_cpu_mask".
That's how it works, indeed.
> > +int find_next_cpu_mask(int n, const cpumask_t *srcp)
> > +{
> > + return find_next_bit(srcp->bits, NR_CPUS, n);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(find_next_cpu_mask);
>
> Maybe a better name for this function would help. I can't think of a
> good one right now though.
I can't think of a better name, and there is find_next_bit of which
find_next_cpu_mask is just a wrapper. I think the name is good enough.
Greetings,
Alexander
--
Alexander van Heukelum
heukelum@xxxxxxxxxxx
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders
wherever you are
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
