On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 11:45:33PM +0000, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote: > Matt Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote: > > > > > Any reason why do you need bitfield based iteration, as opposed to list > > > or array based? > > > > Be nice to have a MI method instead a hodgepodge of MD methods. > > > > The CPU_FOREACH method is ugly. > > I totally agree. That is why couple years ago I wanted to add and convert > everything to MI replacement of struct cpu_info. Since this work requires > intervention to all ports, it did not materialise since.. After cleaning > up the dust from ancient patches, I could put MI interface into a branch.
I want to manipulate sets of CPUs in the kernel, and a set of CPUs is what I understand a kcpuset_t to be. Sometimes I want to iterate over the members of a set. > However, I do not think that adding ad-hoc bitfield based interface in > addition to the "ugly" one is an improvement. Quite the opposite as then > we would need to deal with two "not great" ones. I don't care whether the implementation of CPU sets is based on bitfields or lists or arrays. And it's fine with me if kcpuset iteration is not in addition to CPU_INFO_FOREACH, but instead of it. Dave -- David Young [email protected] Urbana, IL (217) 721-9981
