On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are
> > not
> > allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken.
>
> So the general rule is that cpumasks can have holes, and exempting one
> just muddles the water.
>
> Therefore I'd call the code just plain broken.
Agreed.
That macro is not really helping the readability of the code at all. So a
simple for_each_possible_cpu() loop would have avoided that wreckage.
Thanks,
tglx
