On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 14:56, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I intend[ed] to rewrite this particular patch entirely, but that process has been put on hold for the moment. I suppose it would be best to use this patch is we've gotten it for the time being. -- 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