Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 25 May 2019 10:32:07 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] cpumask: Purify cpumask_next()
Message-ID: <20190525083207.GA102394@gmail.com>
References: <20190525082203.6531-1-namit@vmware.com>
 <20190525082203.6531-3-namit@vmware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190525082203.6531-3-namit@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


* Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:

> cpumask_next() has no side-effects. Mark it as pure.
> 
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/cpumask.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> index 147bdec42215..20df46705f9c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ static inline unsigned int cpumask_last(const struct cpumask *srcp)
>  	return find_last_bit(cpumask_bits(srcp), nr_cpumask_bits);
>  }
>  
> -unsigned int cpumask_next(int n, const struct cpumask *srcp);
> +unsigned int __pure cpumask_next(int n, const struct cpumask *srcp);

I suppose this makes a code generation difference somewhere, right?

I'm wondering, couldn't it also be marked a const function? That's 
supposedly an even better category.

Thanks,

	Ingo