On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > > I'm having trouble working out whether we want to backport this into
> > > 2.6.33.x or earlier. Help?
> >
> > given the above aesthetic mod, shouldn't that same change be
> > applied to *all* explicit loops of that form? after all,
> > checkpatch.pl warns against it:
>
> The number of NR_CPUS should be significantly less after the percpu
> rework. Would you audit the kernel for NR_CPUS use?
i just did a simple grep for the obvious pattern:
$ grep -r "for.*NR_CPUS" *
arch/sparc/mm/init_64.c: for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++)
arch/sparc/kernel/sun4d_smp.c: for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++) {
arch/sparc/kernel/traps_64.c: for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++) {
... etc etc ...
most of the occurrences are under arch/. as you say, after the
rework, most of those should be replaceable.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>