On 16-11-18 07:23 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 19:20:58 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
quoted
On Fri, 2016-11-18 at 18:57 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
quoted
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:43:55 -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
On 16-11-18 06:10 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
[...]
quoted
quoted
Seem like a valid concerns to me how about num_possible_cpus() instead.
That would solve problem 1, but could cpu_possible_mask still be sparse
on strange setups? Let me try to dig into this, I recall someone
(Eric?) was fixing similar problems some time ago.
nr_cpu_ids is probably what you want ;)
Thank you :)
Yep poked around a bit and the common pattern seems to be to use
nr_cpu_ids to build a cpu array and then index it with
smp_processor_id(). So I'll do this as well.
Although I'm not sure I entirely follow on the x86 platforms at
least how/if nr_cpu_ids != num_possible_cpus().
Nice catch Jakub.
Thanks,
John