On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 18:04:16 -0600 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". > -- OK, did that. --- ~Randy -- 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
