Costa Shulyupin <costa.s...@redhat.com> writes:
> Replace `cpumask_any_and(a, b) >= nr_cpu_ids`
> with the more readable `!cpumask_intersects(a, b)`.
I agree it's more readable.
It would be nice if the change log told me that both functions have
similar performance behaviour. I'm not saying this is a super hot path,
but CPU masks can get pretty big, and some cpumask routines compute the
full mask while others short-circuit.
cheers
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/xive/common.c
> b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/xive/common.c
> index fa01818c1972c..a6c388bdf5d08 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/xive/common.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/xive/common.c
> @@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ static int xive_irq_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
> pr_debug("%s: irq %d/0x%x\n", __func__, d->irq, hw_irq);
>
> /* Is this valid ? */
> - if (cpumask_any_and(cpumask, cpu_online_mask) >= nr_cpu_ids)
> + if (!cpumask_intersects(cpumask, cpu_online_mask))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /*
> --
> 2.45.0
