Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161287AbbEEL0G (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2015 07:26:06 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:44506 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161272AbbEEL0B (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2015 07:26:01 -0400 Message-ID: <5548A8C5.1080406@arm.com> Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 12:25:57 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hanjun Guo CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Sudeep Holla , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Boris Ostrovsky , Stefano Stabellini , Lorenzo Pieralisi , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] ACPI / processor: Introduce invalid_phys_cpuid() References: <1430793998-21631-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1430793998-21631-8-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <1430793998-21631-8-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1327 Lines: 42 On 05/05/15 03:46, Hanjun Guo wrote: > Introduce invalid_phys_cpuid() to identify cpu with invalid > physical ID, then used it as replacement of the direct comparisons > with PHYS_CPUID_INVALID. > > Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo > --- > drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/acpi/processor_core.c | 4 ++-- > include/linux/acpi.h | 5 +++++ > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c > index 62c846b..92a5f73 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c [...] > diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h > index 913b49f..cc82ff3 100644 > --- a/include/linux/acpi.h > +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h > @@ -163,6 +163,11 @@ static inline bool invalid_logical_cpuid(u32 cpuid) > return (int)cpuid < 0; > } > > +static inline bool invalid_phys_cpuid(phys_cpuid_t phys_id) > +{ > + return (int)phys_id < 0; Should this be phys_id == PHYS_CPUID_INVALID ? else I don't see why we need to even define PHYS_CPUID_INVALID Regards, Sudeep -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/