* Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> wrote:
> The former duplicate the functionalities of the latter but are neither
> documented nor arch-independent.
> if (!has_mp) {
> - cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_sibling_mask(cpu));
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, topology_thread_cpumask(cpu));
> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_llc_shared_mask(cpu));
So why does topology.h invent a new name for 'sibling CPUs'?
At least in the scheduling context, 'sibling' is the term we are using
in most places in the scheduler - try 'git grep sibling kernel/sched/'.
'thread' is a bad name anyway for a CPU, even if we didn't have an
existing term for it.
So please rename topology_thread_cpumask to topology_sibling_cpumask
to not replace one inconsistency for another one ...
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
