Re: mmotm 2013-02-19-17-20 uploaded

[Stephen Boyd]

On 2/21/2013 10:35 AM, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
>
>> This comment is useful around the cpumask functions.
>>
>>      Returns >= nr_cpu_ids if no further cpus set.
>>
> I had assumed it would be = nr_cpu_ids.
> I will need to rethink the iterator.

Yes it is actually equal to the nr_cpu_ids in my error case. On my
system, nr_cpu_ids = 4 and I only have one cpu online.

>
>
> Also I retested my other patches in the series, the ones for schedstat
> and sched_debug, and those worked fine.

I haven't tried those yet. I will try to take a look.

Also, can't we simplify the code by calling cpumask_next() with the
first argument being -1? No more cpu > 0 check?

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
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/