Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        Gal Pressman <gal@nvidia.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] cpumask: Introduce for_each_cpu_andnot()
In-Reply-To: <YwfmIDEbRT4JfsZp@yury-laptop>
References: <20220825181210.284283-1-vschneid@redhat.com>
 <20220825181210.284283-5-vschneid@redhat.com>
 <YwfmIDEbRT4JfsZp@yury-laptop>
Date:   Mon, 05 Sep 2022 17:44:05 +0100
Message-ID: <xhsmh5yi1db56.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 25/08/22 14:14, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 07:12:05PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> +#define for_each_cpu_andnot(cpu, mask1, mask2)				\
>> +	for ((cpu) = -1;						\
>> +		(cpu) = cpumask_next_andnot((cpu), (mask1), (mask2)),	\
>> +		(cpu) < nr_cpu_ids;)
>
> The standard doesn't guarantee the order of execution of last 2 lines,
> so you might end up with unreliable code. Can you do it in a more
> conventional style:
>    #define for_each_cpu_andnot(cpu, mask1, mask2)			\
>       for ((cpu) = cpumask_next_andnot(-1, (mask1), (mask2));         \
>               (cpu) < nr_cpu_ids;                                     \
>               (cpu) = cpumask_next_andnot((cpu), (mask1), (mask2)))
>

IIUC the order of execution *is* guaranteed as this is a comma operator,
not argument passing:

  6.5.17 Comma operator

  The left operand of a comma operator is evaluated as a void expression;
  there is a sequence point after its evaluation. Then the right operand is
  evaluated; the result has its type and value.

for_each_cpu{_and}() uses the same pattern (which I simply copied here).

Still, I'd be up for making this a bit more readable. I did a bit of
digging to figure out how we ended up with that pattern, and found

  7baac8b91f98 ("cpumask: make for_each_cpu_mask a bit smaller")

so this appears to have been done to save up on generated instructions.
*if* it is actually OK standard-wise, I'd vote to leave it as-is.

>> +
>>  /**
>>   * cpumask_any_but - return a "random" in a cpumask, but not this one.
>>   * @mask: the cpumask to search
>> --
>> 2.31.1