On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 05:44:41PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 5:39 PM Yury Norov <yury.no...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 12:06:51AM +0800, Vernon Yang wrote: > > > After commit 596ff4a09b89 ("cpumask: re-introduce constant-sized cpumask > > > optimizations"), the cpumask size is divided into three different case, > > > so fix comment of cpumask_xxx correctly. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vernon Yang <vernon...@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > include/linux/cpumask.h | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- > > > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h > > > index 8fbe76607965..248bdb1c50dc 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h > > > @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ static __always_inline unsigned int > > > cpumask_check(unsigned int cpu) > > > * cpumask_first - get the first cpu in a cpumask > > > * @srcp: the cpumask pointer > > > * > > > - * Returns >= nr_cpu_ids if no cpus set. > > > + * Returns >= small_cpumask_bits if no cpus set. > > > > There's no such thing like small_cpumask_bits. Here and everywhere, > > nr_cpu_ids must be used. > > > > Actually, before 596ff4a09b89 nr_cpumask_bits was deprecated, and it > > must be like that for all users even now. > > > > nr_cpumask_bits must be considered as internal cpumask parameter and > > never referenced outside of cpumask code. > > What's the right thing I should do, then, for wireguard's usage and > for random.c's usage? It sounds like you object to this patchset, but > if the problem is real, it sounds like I should at least fix the two > cases I maintain. What's the right check?
Everywhere outside of cpumasks internals use (cpu < nr_cpu_ids) to check if the cpu is in a valid range, like: cpu = cpumask_first(cpus); if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) pr_err("There's no cpus");