Re: [PATCH] Make for_each_cpu_mask a bit smaller

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 03:50:39PM +0200, Alexander van Heukelum wrote:
>  #if NR_CPUS > 1
> -#define for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask)		\
> -	for ((cpu) = first_cpu(mask);		\
> -		(cpu) < NR_CPUS;		\
> -		(cpu) = next_cpu((cpu), (mask)))
> +#define for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask)				\
> +	for ((cpu) = 0;						\
> +		(cpu) = find_next_cpu_mask((cpu), &(mask)),	\
> +		(cpu) < NR_CPUS; (cpu)++)

For anyone else having similar cognitive dissonance while reading this
thinking "But won't the first call to find_next_cpu_mask return a number
> 0", the answer is "no, find_next_bit returns the next set bit that's
>= the number passed in, which is why we need both the cpu++ and
find_next_cpu_mask".  

> +int find_next_cpu_mask(int n, const cpumask_t *srcp)
> +{
> +	return find_next_bit(srcp->bits, NR_CPUS, n);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(find_next_cpu_mask);

Maybe a better name for this function would help.  I can't think of a
good one right now though.

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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/