Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:06:41 -0800 From: "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Randall Stewart <rrs@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r218232 - head/sys/netinet Message-ID: <58E18E40-3670-429A-A8D9-0A1C65E99CC5@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201102041356.39777.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201102031922.p13JML8i055697@svn.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102041731160.17623@fledge.watson.org> <4D4C45C9.4080105@freebsd.org> <201102041356.39777.jhb@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 4 Feb 2011, at 10:56, John Baldwin wrote: > The difference here is that FOREACH_THREAD_IN_PROC() is just a > TAILQ_FOREACH(). The CPU iterators are more complex. > > I agree that that we should have topology-aware iterators, though part of the > problem is what do you iterate? We'd have to create new sets of package and > core IDs. > > For HWTHREAD_FOREACH() you can already use CPU_FOREACH(). Yeah, I have no real opinion on spelling at all. Rather, I'm of the opinion that we need some more semantics in order to express useful concepts, and make it easy to represent things like "one X per package", and "find me the closest X to which I wish to enqueue this request". Roberthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?58E18E40-3670-429A-A8D9-0A1C65E99CC5>