Re: [PATCH 01/13] workqueue: remove WORK_CPU_NONE

[Lai Jiangshan]

ä 2013/2/5 3:49, Tejun Heo åé:
> Hello, Lai.
>
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:41:24AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > In __next_wq_cpu() for_each_*wq_cpu(), the name WORK_CPU_LAST
> > is proper than WORK_CPU_NONE, convert them to WORK_CPU_LAST.
> >
> > WORK_CPU_NONE is not used any more, just remove it.
> ...
> >   #define for_each_wq_cpu(cpu)						\
> >   	for ((cpu) = __next_wq_cpu(-1, cpu_possible_mask, 3);		\
> > -	     (cpu) < WORK_CPU_NONE;					\
> > +	     (cpu) < WORK_CPU_LAST;					\
> >   	     (cpu) = __next_wq_cpu((cpu), cpu_possible_mask, 3))
>
> LAST implies that it's the last element of the range and thus that
> it's an inclusive range.  Maybe we should rename it to WORK_CPU_END?

You are right, WORK_CPU_END seems better.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/