Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86: replace cpu_**_mask() with topology_**_cpumask()

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

2015-05-02 8:33 GMT+02:00 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> * Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> The former duplicate the functionalities of the latter but are neither
>> documented nor arch-independent.
>
>>       if (!has_mp) {
>> -             cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_sibling_mask(cpu));
>> +             cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, topology_thread_cpumask(cpu));
>>               cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_llc_shared_mask(cpu));
>
> So why does topology.h invent a new name for 'sibling CPUs'?
>
> At least in the scheduling context, 'sibling' is the term we are using
> in most places in the scheduler - try 'git grep sibling kernel/sched/'.
>
> 'thread' is a bad name anyway for a CPU, even if we didn't have an
> existing term for it.

Actually those macros used to be called topology_core_siblings() and
topology_thread_siblings() until commit fbd59a8d1.

> So please rename topology_thread_cpumask to topology_sibling_cpumask
> to not replace one inconsistency for another one ...

I'll prepare a new series.

Best regards,
Bartosz Golaszewski
--
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/