On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015, Vikas Shivappa wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:17:08AM -0700, Vikas Shivappa wrote:
+ cpumask_and(&tmp, cpu_online_mask, mask);
+ cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &tmp);
+ return cpumask_any(&tmp);
+}
You had a good example in cpumask_any_but() copy that.
I saw the cpumask_any_but but wanted to avoid the for loop in the
cpumask_any_but , but now i see why from your previous comment. Without the
cpumask_t I will have to use the cpumask_any_but .. the two were related.
It can be done w/o a loop. Hint, you need a static cpumask in your
code anyway.
Ah thats right, I always need the tmp mask. Confused this with
avoiding the cpumask_clear_cpu line in the code vs. using cpumask_any_but.
something like this just making it static then ?
static cpumask_t tmp;
cpumask_and(&tmp, cpu_online_mask, mask);
cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &tmp);
return cpumask_any(&tmp);
Thanks,
Vikas
Thanks
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
