On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 05:01:54PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:24:26 -0200 > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 04:01:49PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: [...] > > > > + DECLARE_BITMAP(present_cpus, MAX_CPUMASK_BITS); > > > naming is a bit confusing, it's not really present CPUs but > > > more like possible_cpus > > > > I meant "present in the NUMA configuration". "Possible" wouldn't > > describe it IMO, as it is just tracking the CPUs seen in the config. I > > will rename it to "seen_cpus" in the next version. > or maybe numa_cpus
We're already inside numa.c in a function called validate_numa_cpus(). I believe a "numa_" prefix would be redundant. (I just sent v3 of the series using seen_cpus, anyway) -- Eduardo
