From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:01:09 +0930 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87twqgpe4y.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1443205347-13634-1-git-send-email-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> writes:
> Maybe third time's the charm...
>
> The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are
> exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables
> cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via
> the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz. There's quite a bit of code
> throughout the kernel which iterates over or otherwise accesses these
> bitmaps, and having the access go via the cpu_xyz_mask variables is
> simply a useless indirection.
Thanks, consider all patches Acked-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
But to be clear, it has outlived its usefulness, but it was not useless.
In particular, there used to be a debug config where 'struct cpumask'
wasn't defined, so we could catch people declaring 'struct cpumask' on
the stack (or passing by value).
There was a plan to remove CONFIG_NR_CPUS (ie. having no compile-time
cpu limit), but it seemed overkill and was abandoned. But avoiding
'struct cpumask' (not struct cpumask *) in the core wherever possible
was a step towards it.
Hope that clarifies,
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-27 6:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-25 18:22 [PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection Rasmus Villemoes
2015-09-25 18:22 ` [PATCH 1/5] kernel/cpu.c: change type of cpu_possible_bits and friends Rasmus Villemoes
2015-09-25 18:22 ` [PATCH 2/5] kernel/cpu.c: export __cpu_*_mask Rasmus Villemoes
2015-09-25 18:22 ` [PATCH 3/5] drivers/base/cpu.c: use __cpu_*_mask directly Rasmus Villemoes
2015-10-04 19:09 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2015-09-25 18:22 ` [PATCH 4/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate cpu_*_mask Rasmus Villemoes
2015-09-28 6:02 ` kbuild test robot
2015-09-28 6:39 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-09-25 18:22 ` [PATCH 5/5] kernel/cpu.c: make set_cpu_* static inlines Rasmus Villemoes
2015-09-27 6:31 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2015-09-28 6:21 ` [PATCH 0/5] kernel/cpu.c: eliminate some indirection Rasmus Villemoes
2015-09-28 21:44 ` Rusty Russell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-05-06 22:52 Rasmus Villemoes
2015-06-11 9:31 ` Rasmus Villemoes
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=87twqgpe4y.fsf@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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