2015-05-02 8:33 GMT+02:00 Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>: > > * Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The former duplicate the functionalities of the latter but are neither >> documented nor arch-independent. > >> if (!has_mp) { >> - cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_sibling_mask(cpu)); >> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, topology_thread_cpumask(cpu)); >> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_llc_shared_mask(cpu)); > > So why does topology.h invent a new name for 'sibling CPUs'? > > At least in the scheduling context, 'sibling' is the term we are using > in most places in the scheduler - try 'git grep sibling kernel/sched/'. > > 'thread' is a bad name anyway for a CPU, even if we didn't have an > existing term for it.
Actually those macros used to be called topology_core_siblings() and topology_thread_siblings() until commit fbd59a8d1. > So please rename topology_thread_cpumask to topology_sibling_cpumask > to not replace one inconsistency for another one ... I'll prepare a new series. Best regards, Bartosz Golaszewski -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
