On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 05:45:04PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote: > On 25/09/22 08:23, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 04:55:37PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote: > >> +/** > >> + * for_each_cpu_andnot - iterate over every cpu present in one mask, excluding > >> + * those present in another. > >> + * @cpu: the (optionally unsigned) integer iterator > >> + * @mask1: the first cpumask pointer > >> + * @mask2: the second cpumask pointer > >> + * > >> + * This saves a temporary CPU mask in many places. It is equivalent to: > >> + * struct cpumask tmp; > >> + * cpumask_andnot(&tmp, &mask1, &mask2); > >> + * for_each_cpu(cpu, &tmp) > >> + * ... > >> + * > >> + * After the loop, cpu is >= nr_cpu_ids. > >> + */ > >> +#define for_each_cpu_andnot(cpu, mask1, mask2) \ > >> + for ((cpu) = -1; \ > >> + (cpu) = cpumask_next_andnot((cpu), (mask1), (mask2)), \ > >> + (cpu) < nr_cpu_ids;) > > > > This would raise cpumaks_check() warning at the very last iteration. > > Because cpu is initialized insize the loop, you don't need to check it > > at all. You can do it like this: > > > > #define for_each_cpu_andnot(cpu, mask1, mask2) \ > > for_each_andnot_bit(...) > > > > Check this series for details (and please review). > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220919210559.1509179-8-yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx/T/ > > > > Thanks, I'll have a look. Also, if you send first 4 patches as a separate series on top of bitmap-for-next, I'll be able to include them in bitmap-for-next and then in 6.1 pull-request. Thanks, Yury
