MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230306160651.2016767-1-vernon2gm@gmail.com> <20230306160651.2016767-6-vernon2gm@gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whVnaTBt2Xm-A+8SMc5-q5CuZBDU6rUZ8yC8GoAnbTBvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=witXXeQuP9fgs4dDL2Ex0meXQiHJs+3JEfNdaPwngMVEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHmME9qN1EcfzE2ONA-B+F=8xaqZhqkEY=_npYHgtBpUFCj4Lw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjR6SGJhhHT6NzHcZHBJ3p5Y_JPvpQPjkeNQE+emivS6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAHk-=whsQuc-S4vuYpvi013-81UNvNc8CoTMC5AKOMT-uq_7Og@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whsQuc-S4vuYpvi013-81UNvNc8CoTMC5AKOMT-uq_7Og@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2023 18:52:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHmME9remVPMHaHN-aSRe6ra=QcOPK+KGMgBLKCtfa8Zodt_pw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] cpumask: fix comment of cpumask_xxx
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi Linus,

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:28=E2=80=AFPM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> I'm looking at wg_cpumask_next_online(), and this:
>
>         while (unlikely(!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpu_online_mask)))
>                 cpu =3D cpumask_next(cpu, cpu_online_mask) % nr_cpumask_b=
its;
>
> seems very dodgy indeed. I'm not convinced it might not cause an endless =
loop.

Indeed this code is crap and wrong in multiple ways. I can probably
simplify to something like

static inline int wg_cpumask_next_online(int *last_cpu)
{
        int cpu =3D cpumask_next(*last_cpu, cpu_online_mask);
        if (cpu >=3D nr_cpu_ids)
                cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask);

as you suggested, which is indeed a lot more straightforward.

I'll get this all cleaned up.

Jason