On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 01:21:59AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote: > cpumask_next() has no side-effects. Mark it as pure.
It would be good to have a few word on why... because apparently you found this makes a difference. > Cc: "David S. Miller" <da...@davemloft.net> > Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <na...@vmware.com> > --- > include/linux/cpumask.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h > index 147bdec42215..20df46705f9c 100644 > --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h > +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h > @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ static inline unsigned int cpumask_last(const struct > cpumask *srcp) > return find_last_bit(cpumask_bits(srcp), nr_cpumask_bits); > } > > -unsigned int cpumask_next(int n, const struct cpumask *srcp); > +unsigned int __pure cpumask_next(int n, const struct cpumask *srcp); > > /** > * cpumask_next_zero - get the next unset cpu in a cpumask > -- > 2.20.1 >
