From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752223AbbEDIX2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 4 May 2015 04:23:28 -0400
Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com ([209.85.223.182]:35960 "EHLO
	mail-ie0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751649AbbEDIXH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 4 May 2015 04:23:07 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150502063355.GA25303@gmail.com>
References: <1430388241-4502-1-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
	<1430388241-4502-6-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
	<20150502063355.GA25303@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 10:23:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJUsZhn62MMQSwB+MNQ4eTDbDdmOLB9CFjbXYVcJm+eVvw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86: replace cpu_**_mask() with topology_**_cpumask()
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        x86@kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Benoit Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

2015-05-02 8:33 GMT+02:00 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>:
>
> * Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> wrote:
>
>> The former duplicate the functionalities of the latter but are neither
>> documented nor arch-independent.
>
>>       if (!has_mp) {
>> -             cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_sibling_mask(cpu));
>> +             cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, topology_thread_cpumask(cpu));
>>               cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_llc_shared_mask(cpu));
>
> So why does topology.h invent a new name for 'sibling CPUs'?
>
> At least in the scheduling context, 'sibling' is the term we are using
> in most places in the scheduler - try 'git grep sibling kernel/sched/'.
>
> 'thread' is a bad name anyway for a CPU, even if we didn't have an
> existing term for it.

Actually those macros used to be called topology_core_siblings() and
topology_thread_siblings() until commit fbd59a8d1.

> So please rename topology_thread_cpumask to topology_sibling_cpumask
> to not replace one inconsistency for another one ...

I'll prepare a new series.

Best regards,
Bartosz Golaszewski