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

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

At 14:10 +0000 on 21 Jan (1421845837), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 21.01.15 at 13:21, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 19/01/15 15:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> --- a/xen/common/core_parking.c
> >> +++ b/xen/common/core_parking.c
> >> @@ -75,11 +75,10 @@ static unsigned int core_parking_perform
> >>              if ( core_weight < core_tmp )
> >>              {
> >>                  core_weight = core_tmp;
> >> -                cpumask_clear(&core_candidate_map);
> >> -                cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &core_candidate_map);
> >> +                cpumask_copy(&core_candidate_map, cpumask_of(cpu));
> > 
> > It is probably worth mentioning changes like this in the commit message,
> > as they are slightly more than just a simple removal of the lock prefix.
> 
> Added.
> 
> >> +static inline void __cpumask_clr_cpu(int cpu, cpumask_t *dstp)
> >> +{
> >> +  __clear_bit(cpumask_check(cpu), dstp->bits);
> >> +}
> >> +
> > 
> > While I can appreciate the want for a shorter function name, I feel that
> > consistency with its locked alternative is more important.
> 
> I sort of expected a comment to that effect, but decided to use the
> shorter names nevertheless. Let's see what others, namely the REST
> maintainers, say.

FWIW, I prefer consistent naming (i.e. __cpumask_clear_cpu()).

Cheers,

Tim.

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