lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/6] cpumask: Purify cpumask_next()

    * Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:

    > cpumask_next() has no side-effects. Mark it as pure.
    >
    > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
    > Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
    > ---
    > 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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-05-25 10:33    [W:3.394 / U:0.040 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site