Jens Axboe <[email protected]> writes:
>> This assumes that the first_sibling is listed before any other siblings,
>> which I don't believe is true. I don't think you get any guaranteed
>> ordering in that cpu_possible_mask.
>>
>> ... or did I miss something?
>
> That's correct, it's assuming the first sibling is the lowest numbered
> one. Are there cases where that would not be correct? I was sort of
> assuming that was what "first" meant here.
Yeah, you're right. I hadn't read down the call chain:
static int get_first_sibling(unsigned int cpu)
ret = cpumask_first(topology_thread_cpumask(cpu));
Nothing to see here, move along...
-Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
