Michael Witten wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:19, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 02:19:37 -0600 Michael Witten wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 01:33, Michael Witten <mfwitten@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+ <function>get_cpu()</function> disables preemption on the local CPU
+ (so you won't suddenly get moved to another CPU) and then returns
+ the local CPU id as a number ranging from 0 up to (but not including)
+ <symbol>NR_CPUS</symbol>; subsequently returned CPU ids are not
+ necessarily contiguous.
It occurred to me that the original 'continuous' means 'constant'
rather than 'contiguous'. However, given the introduction of the term
'local CPU', I don't think that this sentence is even necessary
anymore. How about just removing it?
Remove that entire paragraph (above) or just the "subsequently returned
CPU ids are not necessarily contiguous." part of it? Removing the latter
makes sense to me.
hah!
I knew this would be a point of confusion as soon as I hit 'send'. :-D
I did indeed mean just the "subquently returned CPU ids are not
necessarily contiguous".
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please consider this possibility.
Keep the sentence, but replace the word "contiguous" with "numerically
sequential".
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
