On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are
> > not
> > allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken.
>
> So the general rule is that cpumasks can have holes, and exempting one
> just muddles the water.
>
> Therefore I'd call the code just plain broken.
I'll say.
Can't the code simply do:
if (!cpu_possible(i))
continue;
?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
