Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [RFT PATCH] Dynamic sched domains (v0.6)

[Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>]

Dinakar wrote:
> >  * The name 'nodemask' for the cpumask_t of CPUs that are siblings to CPU i
> >    is a bit confusing (yes, that name was already there).  How about
> >    something like 'siblings' ?
> 
> Not sure which code you are referring to here ?? I dont see any nodemask
> referring to SMT siblings ? 

This comment was referring to lines such as the following, which appear
a few places in your patch (though not lines you wrote, just nearby
lines, in all but one case):

 		cpumask_t nodemask = node_to_cpumask(cpu_to_node(i));

I was thinking to change such a line to:

 		cpumask_t sibling = node_to_cpumask(cpu_to_node(i));

However, it is no biggie, and since it is not in your actual new
code, probably should not be part of your patch anyway.

There is one place, arch_destroy_sched_domains(), where you added such a
line, but there you should probably use the same 'nodemask' name as the
other couple of places, unless and until these places change together.

So bottom line - nevermind this comment.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@engr.sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373, 1.925.600.0401