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 S1751388AbbEBGeH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 2 May 2015 02:34:07 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]:35510 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750794AbbEBGeC (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 2 May 2015 02:34:02 -0400
Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 08:33:55 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86: replace cpu_**_mask() with topology_**_cpumask()
Message-ID: <20150502063355.GA25303@gmail.com>
References: <1430388241-4502-1-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
 <1430388241-4502-6-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1430388241-4502-6-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.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.

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

Thanks,

	Ingo