Re: [PATCH] for_each_possible_cpu [1/19] defines for_each_possible_cpu

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>>for_each_cpu() effectively is for_each_possible_cpu() as far as
>>generic code is concerned. In other words, nobody would ever expect
>>for_each_cpu to return an _impossible_ CPU, thus you are just
>>adding a redundant element to the name.
> 
> 
> We've had various screwups and confusions with these things.  I think the
> new naming is good - it makes developers _think_ before they use it. 
> Instead of "I want to touch all the CPUs, gee that looks right" they'll
> have to stop and decide whether they want to access the online, possible or
> present ones and then they'll (hopefully) have a little think about what
> happens when CPUs migrate between those states.
> 
> 

I think screwups probably came from unclear documentation (which it was
until recently, and some implementations were plain wrong IIRC), and the
recentish introduction of cpu hotplug.

I don't see the point in this though. If people don't want to even think
about these issues, then this change isn't going to make them.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com