On 16-11-18 07:23 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 19:20:58 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> On Fri, 2016-11-18 at 18:57 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>> On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:43:55 -0800, John Fastabend wrote: >>>> On 16-11-18 06:10 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> [...] >>>> >>>> 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
