Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] cpumask: Purify cpumask_next()

[Ingo Molnar]

* Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> cpumask_next() has no side-effects. Mark it as pure.
> 
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  include/linux/cpumask.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> index 147bdec42215..20df46705f9c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ static inline unsigned int cpumask_last(const struct cpumask *srcp)
>  	return find_last_bit(cpumask_bits(srcp), nr_cpumask_bits);
>  }
>  
> -unsigned int cpumask_next(int n, const struct cpumask *srcp);
> +unsigned int __pure cpumask_next(int n, const struct cpumask *srcp);

I suppose this makes a code generation difference somewhere, right?

I'm wondering, couldn't it also be marked a const function? That's 
supposedly an even better category.

Thanks,

	Ingo