Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] introduce and used relaxed cpumask operations

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 21.01.15 at 15:42, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 01/21/2015 02:35 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 21.01.15 at 15:28, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 01/19/2015 03:58 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> @@ -780,10 +780,7 @@ rt_schedule(const struct scheduler *ops,
>>>>      }
>>>>      else
>>>>      {
>>>> -        cpumask_t cur_cpu;
>>>> -        cpumask_clear(&cur_cpu);
>>>> -        cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cur_cpu);
>>>> -        snext = __runq_pick(ops, &cur_cpu);
>>>> +        snext = __runq_pick(ops, cpumask_of(cpu));
>>>>          if ( snext == NULL )
>>>>              snext = rt_vcpu(idle_vcpu[cpu]);
>>>>  
>>>
>>> This bit really needs explicit mention in the changelog.
>> 
>> Already done in response to Andrew's similar request.
> 
> Ah, sorry -- I saw that but for some reason thought he was talking about
> a different hunk.

It was indeed, be the wording I added

Note that this
- adds a volatile qualifier to cpumask_test_and_{clear,set}_cpu()
  (should have been there from the beginning, like is the case for
  cpumask_{clear,set}_cpu())
- replaces several cpumask_clear()+cpumask_set_cpu(, n) pairs by the
  simpler cpumask_copy(, cpumask_of(n)) (or just cpumask_of(n) if we
  can do without copying)

isn't really specific to where these changes get done (as it's a
common pattern).

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel