On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:26:10AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
[...]
> > > - if (i == nb_numa_nodes) {
> > > + if (i == max_numa_node) {
> > > for (i = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) {
> > > - set_bit(i, numa_info[i % nb_numa_nodes].node_cpu);
> > > + do {
> > > + j = (j + 1) % max_numa_node;
> > > + } while (!numa_info[j].present);
> >
> > If you change it from "do { } while" to "while { }", you don't need to
> > initialize j to -1.
>
> I don't think that's quite as simple as you make it out to be. If you
> use a while() loop, we won't always increment j, which means once we've
> found a present node, we'll always use that node? j here basically
> represents the *last* used nodeid, which we don't want to use again when
> we re-enter the for-loop, we want to use the next present nodeid. It
> seems like the do {} while() does this fine? I could use a while() if I
> added another increment outside the loop, as follows:
>
> if (i == max_numa_nodeid) {
> for (i = 0, j = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) {
> while (!numa_info[j].present) {
> j = (j + 1) % (max_numa_nodeid);
> }
> set_bit(i, numa_info[j].node_cpu);
> j = (j + 1) % (max_numa_nodeid);
> }
> }
>
> If you think that is cleaner, I'll use that version.
You are right, and your "do { } while" version looks cleaner than
duplicating the "j = (j + 1) % (max_numa_nodeid)" line.
--
Eduardo
