Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:08:56 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] for_each_possible_cpu [1/19] defines for_each_possible_cpu |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>for_each_cpu() effectively is for_each_possible_cpu() as far as >>generic code is concerned. In other words, nobody would ever expect >>for_each_cpu to return an _impossible_ CPU, thus you are just >>adding a redundant element to the name. > > > We've had various screwups and confusions with these things. I think the > new naming is good - it makes developers _think_ before they use it. > Instead of "I want to touch all the CPUs, gee that looks right" they'll > have to stop and decide whether they want to access the online, possible or > present ones and then they'll (hopefully) have a little think about what > happens when CPUs migrate between those states. > >
I think screwups probably came from unclear documentation (which it was until recently, and some implementations were plain wrong IIRC), and the recentish introduction of cpu hotplug.
I don't see the point in this though. If people don't want to even think about these issues, then this change isn't going to make them.
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |