From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Mladek Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/22] kthread: Add create_kthread_worker*() Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:44:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20160216154443.GW12548@pathway.suse.cz> References: <1453736711-6703-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> <1453736711-6703-5-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com> <20160125185339.GB3628@mtj.duckdns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160125185339.GB3628@mtj.duckdns.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , "Paul E. McKenney" , Josh Triplett , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Jiri Kosina , Borislav Petkov , Michal Hocko , linux-mm@kvack.org, Vlastimil Babka , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Mon 2016-01-25 13:53:39, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:44:53PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > +struct kthread_worker * > > +create_kthread_worker_on_cpu(int cpu, const char namefmt[]) > > +{ > > + if (cpu < 0 || cpu > num_possible_cpus()) > > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > Comparing cpu ID to num_possible_cpus() doesn't make any sense. It > should either be testing against cpu_possible_mask or testing against > nr_cpu_ids. Does this test need to be in this function at all? I wanted to be sure. The cpu number is later passed to cpu_to_node(cpu) in kthread_create_on_cpu(). I am going to replace this with a check against nr_cpu_ids in kthread_create_on_cpu() which makes more sense. I might be too paranoid. But this is slow path. People do mistakes... Thanks, Petr -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org