From: Yury Norov <yury.no...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2024 10:50 AM > > Calling cpumask_next_wrap_old() with starting CPU == nr_cpu_ids > is effectively the same as request to find first CPU, starting > from a given one and wrapping around if needed. > > cpumask_next_wrap() is a proper replacement for that. > > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.no...@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/pci/controller/pci-hyperv.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-hyperv.c > b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-hyperv.c > index 86d1c2be8eb5..f8ebf98248b3 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-hyperv.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-hyperv.c > @@ -1757,8 +1757,7 @@ static int hv_compose_multi_msi_req_get_cpu(void) > > spin_lock_irqsave(&multi_msi_cpu_lock, flags); > > - cpu_next = cpumask_next_wrap_old(cpu_next, cpu_online_mask, nr_cpu_ids, > - false); > + cpu_next = cpumask_next_wrap(cpu_next, cpu_online_mask); > cpu = cpu_next; > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&multi_msi_cpu_lock, flags); > -- > 2.43.0 >
I remember reviewing the patch that originally added this use of cpumask_next_wrap(). The two extra parameters were really hard to understand. Nice to see them go away! Reviewed-by: Michael Kelley <mhkli...@outlook.com>
