From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263984AbTLVI63 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:58:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264347AbTLVI63 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:58:29 -0500 Received: from holomorphy.com ([199.26.172.102]:8864 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263984AbTLVI61 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:58:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:57:52 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Paul Jackson Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ioe-lkml@rameria.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] another minor bit of cpumask cleanup Message-ID: <20031222085752.GB27687@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Paul Jackson , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ioe-lkml@rameria.de References: <20031221180044.0f27eca1.pj@sgi.com> <20031221224745.268db46d.akpm@osdl.org> <20031221231918.34fcca86.pj@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031221231918.34fcca86.pj@sgi.com> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At some point in the past, akpm wrote: >> Please, hang onto it until we get things synced up a bit more. On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 11:19:18PM -0800, Paul Jackson wrote: > Ok - good idea. I'll resend later on. There is no hurry on this one. A rereading of this thread reveals the point of the thing was missed. It's supposed to iterate over online cpus in an given bitmap. It was meant to replace iterations like: for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) { if (!cpu_online(cpu)) continue; do_something(cpu); } with for_each_online_cpu(cpu, mask) do_something(cpu); Using any_online_cpu() as the starting point repairs it, since that properly ands mask with cpu_online_map and hands back the first cpu, though it's only a coincidence it hands back the first such cpu. There isn't a a first_online_cpu() in the API, that's just effectively what any_online_cpu() does at the moment. On the other hand, I just don't care anymore, apart from clarifying intent so as to counter the implication that all I did back then was crap gibberish all over the tree. I personally have received zero recognition or other return on my efforts in this area apart from the mere fact it was merged. In fact, rather the opposite. -- wli