From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] cpumask: Purify cpumask_next()
Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 10:32:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190525083207.GA102394@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190525082203.6531-3-namit@vmware.com>
* Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
> cpumask_next() has no side-effects. Mark it as pure.
>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
> ---
> include/linux/cpumask.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> index 147bdec42215..20df46705f9c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ static inline unsigned int cpumask_last(const struct cpumask *srcp)
> return find_last_bit(cpumask_bits(srcp), nr_cpumask_bits);
> }
>
> -unsigned int cpumask_next(int n, const struct cpumask *srcp);
> +unsigned int __pure cpumask_next(int n, const struct cpumask *srcp);
I suppose this makes a code generation difference somewhere, right?
I'm wondering, couldn't it also be marked a const function? That's
supposedly an even better category.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-25 8:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-25 8:21 [RFC PATCH 0/6] x86/mm: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 1/6] smp: Remove smp_call_function() and on_each_cpu() return values Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 2/6] cpumask: Purify cpumask_next() Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:32 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2019-05-27 8:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-27 17:34 ` Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 3/6] smp: Run functions concurrently in smp_call_function_many() Nadav Amit
2019-05-27 9:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-27 17:39 ` Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 4/6] x86/mm/tlb: Refactor common code into flush_tlb_on_cpus() Nadav Amit
2019-05-27 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-27 18:59 ` Nadav Amit
2019-05-27 19:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-25 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 5/6] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:38 ` Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:54 ` Juergen Gross
2019-05-27 9:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-27 10:21 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-05-27 12:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-27 12:45 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-05-27 17:49 ` Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] x86/mm/tlb: Optimize local TLB flushes Nadav Amit
2019-05-27 8:28 ` [RFC PATCH 0/6] x86/mm: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-27 9:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190525083207.GA102394@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox