Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] cpumask: Purify cpumask_next()

> On May 27, 2019, at 1:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 01:21:59AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote: >> cpumask_next() has no side-effects. Mark it as pure. > > It would be good to have a few word on why... because apparently you > found this makes a difference. I see that

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] cpumask: Purify cpumask_next()

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 01:21:59AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote: > cpumask_next() has no side-effects. Mark it as pure. It would be good to have a few word on why... because apparently you found this makes a difference. > Cc: "David S. Miller" > Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit > --- >

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] cpumask: Purify cpumask_next()

* Nadav Amit wrote: > cpumask_next() has no side-effects. Mark it as pure. > > Cc: "David S. Miller" > Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit > --- > include/linux/cpumask.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h >

[RFC PATCH 2/6] cpumask: Purify cpumask_next()

cpumask_next() has no side-effects. Mark it as pure. Cc: "David S. Miller" Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit --- include/linux/cpumask.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h index 147bdec42215..20df46705f9c 100644 ---