Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the useless branch in c_start()

2012-09-26 Thread Michael Wang
On 09/26/2012 09:02 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:43:52AM +0800, Michael Wang wrote: >> On 09/19/2012 01:42 PM, Michael Wang wrote: >>> Since 'cpu == -1' in cpumask_next() is legal, no need to handle '*pos == 0' >>> specially. >>> >>> About the comments: >>> /* just in

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the useless branch in c_start()

2012-09-26 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:43:52AM +0800, Michael Wang wrote: > On 09/19/2012 01:42 PM, Michael Wang wrote: > > Since 'cpu == -1' in cpumask_next() is legal, no need to handle '*pos == 0' > > specially. > > > > About the comments: > > /* just in case, cpu 0 is not the first */ > > A test with

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the useless branch in c_start()

2012-09-25 Thread Michael Wang
On 09/19/2012 01:42 PM, Michael Wang wrote: > Since 'cpu == -1' in cpumask_next() is legal, no need to handle '*pos == 0' > specially. > > About the comments: > /* just in case, cpu 0 is not the first */ > A test with a cpumask in which cpu 0 is not the first has been done, and it > works we