>>> Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> 09/07/18 6:08 PM >>> >On 07/09/18 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 07.09.18 at 17:35, <george.dun...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> I took Andy's "Its[sic] barely used" comment to mean there were lots of >>> other places which also just passed a cpumask_t pointer directly into >>> something expecting a bitmap. If all other use cases either use >>> cpumask_bits() or ->bits, then we should do the same here. If there are >>> lots of places where we assume (void *)mask == (void *)mask->bits, then >>> we should probably document that the structure should match that (and >>> maybe add a BUILD_BUG_ON() if we can manage it). >> I'm unaware of places which don't go through ->bits. > >All the printing, seeing as I didn't hit a single cpumask_bits() in this >series.
That's all because of ... >The cpumask infrastructure itself uses ->bits, which is less verbose >than the helper. ... it's part of the cpumask implementation. The helper really is (imo) for code that's not part of the cpumask infrastructure, i.e. in particular cases like the ones you add. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
