[FIX REQUEST] x86: smp.h is totally confused about processor ID

[FIX REQUEST] x86: smp.h is totally confused about processor ID

[Jaswinder Singh Rajput]

Latest -tip tree shows
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=blob;f=arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h;h=6a84ed166aec136334a644cc4fbaa676368ae983;hb=HEAD :


27 DECLARE_PER_CPU(int, cpu_number);
28 
29 static inline struct cpumask *cpu_sibling_mask(int cpu)
30 {
31         return per_cpu(cpu_sibling_map, cpu);
32 }
33 
34 static inline struct cpumask *cpu_core_mask(int cpu)
35 {
36         return per_cpu(cpu_core_map, cpu);
37 }

it should be unsigned int cpu/cpu_number as it is non-negative.


47 
48 struct smp_ops {
49         void (*smp_prepare_boot_cpu)(void);
50         void (*smp_prepare_cpus)(unsigned max_cpus);
51         void (*smp_cpus_done)(unsigned max_cpus);
52 
53         void (*smp_send_stop)(void);
54         void (*smp_send_reschedule)(int cpu);
55 
56         int (*cpu_up)(unsigned cpu);
57         int (*cpu_disable)(void);
58         void (*cpu_die)(unsigned int cpu);
59         void (*play_dead)(void);
60 
61         void (*send_call_func_ipi)(const struct cpumask *mask);
62         void (*send_call_func_single_ipi)(int cpu);
63 };

In same structure it using int, unsigned and unsigned int cpu

It should be consistent either unsigned cpu or unsigned int cpu.

I think unsigned int cpu will be more better choice.

Similarly another instances in same file.

Thanks,
--
JSR

Re: [FIX REQUEST] x86: smp.h is totally confused about processor ID

[Rusty Russell]

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 05:30:34 pm Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> In same structure it using int, unsigned and unsigned int cpu

I prefer unsigned int, but historically it's been very loose.  FWIW, I have no 
problems with a cleanup either way.

Thanks,
Rusty.