rusty@rustcorp.com.au said:
> Yeah, it's simple, and none of the current ones are really critical.
> But I think we're better off with:
> for (i = first_cpu(); i < NR_CPUS; i = next_cpu(i)) {
> Which is simple enough not to need an iterator macro, and also has the
> bonus of giving irq-balancing et al. an efficient, portable way of
> looking for the "next" cpu.
So you're thinking that next_cpu(i) is something like
__ffs((~(unsigned)((1<<i)-1) & cpu_online_map)
plus an extra exception piece to take next_cpu(i) above NR_CPUS if we have no
remaining CPUs (because __ffs would be undefined)? It's the exception piece
that I don't see how to do really efficiently.
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 23 2002 - 22:00:25 EST