On Friday, February 04, 2011 1:30:33 pm Julian Elischer wrote: > On 2/4/11 9:38 AM, Robert Watson wrote: > > > > On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, John Baldwin wrote: > > > >>> 1) Move per John Baldwin to mp_maxid > >>> 2) Some signed/unsigned errors found by Mac OS compiler (from > >>> Michael) > >>> 3) a couple of copyright updates on the effected files. > >> > >> Note that mp_maxid is the maxium valid ID, so you typically have to > >> do things like: > >> > >> for (i = 0; i <= mp_maxid; i++) { > >> if (CPU_ABSENT(i)) > >> continue; > >> ... > >> } > >> > >> There is a CPU_FOREACH() macro that does the above (but assumes you > >> want to skip over non-existent CPUs). > > > > I'm finding the network stack requires quite a bit more along these > > lines, btw. I'd love also to have: > > > > PACKAGE_FOREACH() > > CORE_FOREACH() > > HWTHREAD_FOREACH() > > > > I agree, which is why I usually support adding such iterators though > some people scream about them. > (e.g. FOREACH_THREAD_IN_PROC and there is one for iterating through > vnets too.)
The difference here is that FOREACH_THREAD_IN_PROC() is just a TAILQ_FOREACH(). The CPU iterators are more complex. I agree that that we should have topology-aware iterators, though part of the problem is what do you iterate? We'd have to create new sets of package and core IDs. For HWTHREAD_FOREACH() you can already use CPU_FOREACH(). -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"