Re: [PATCH 5/5] cpumask: fix comment of cpumask_xxx

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 5:39 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 12:06:51AM +0800, Vernon Yang wrote:
> > After commit 596ff4a09b89 ("cpumask: re-introduce constant-sized cpumask
> > optimizations"), the cpumask size is divided into three different case,
> > so fix comment of cpumask_xxx correctly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vernon Yang <vernon2gm@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/cpumask.h | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > index 8fbe76607965..248bdb1c50dc 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ static __always_inline unsigned int cpumask_check(unsigned int cpu)
> >   * cpumask_first - get the first cpu in a cpumask
> >   * @srcp: the cpumask pointer
> >   *
> > - * Returns >= nr_cpu_ids if no cpus set.
> > + * Returns >= small_cpumask_bits if no cpus set.
>
> There's no such thing like small_cpumask_bits. Here and everywhere,
> nr_cpu_ids must be used.
>
> Actually, before 596ff4a09b89 nr_cpumask_bits was deprecated, and it
> must be like that for all users even now.
>
> nr_cpumask_bits must be considered as internal cpumask parameter and
> never referenced outside of cpumask code.

What's the right thing I should do, then, for wireguard's usage and
for random.c's usage? It sounds like you object to this patchset, but
if the problem is real, it sounds like I should at least fix the two
cases I maintain. What's the right check?

Jason