From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 4 19:06:45 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A449106564A; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 19:06:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41DBD8FC12; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 19:06:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.255.240.234] (192-5-67-11.sri.com [192.5.67.11]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F85946B06; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:06:44 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Robert N. M. Watson" In-Reply-To: <201102041356.39777.jhb@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:06:41 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <58E18E40-3670-429A-A8D9-0A1C65E99CC5@freebsd.org> References: <201102031922.p13JML8i055697@svn.freebsd.org> <4D4C45C9.4080105@freebsd.org> <201102041356.39777.jhb@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Randall Stewart , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer Subject: Re: svn commit: r218232 - head/sys/netinet X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 19:06:45 -0000 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. >=20 > I agree that that we should have topology-aware iterators, though part = of the=20 > problem is what do you iterate? We'd have to create new sets of = package and=20 > core IDs. >=20 > 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". Robert=