On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 4:25 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Yury Norov [NVIDIA] <yury.norov@gmail.com>
>
> cpumask_next_wrap() is more verbose and efficient comparing to
> cpumask_next() followed by cpumask_first().
>
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov [NVIDIA] <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> ---
> kernel/time/clocksource.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/clocksource.c b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> index 2e24ce884272..0aef0e349e49 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> @@ -584,9 +584,7 @@ static void clocksource_watchdog(struct timer_list *unused)
> * Cycle through CPUs to check if the CPUs stay synchronized
> * to each other.
> */
> - next_cpu = cpumask_next(raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu_online_mask);
> - if (next_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> - next_cpu = cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask);
> + next_cpu = cpumask_next_wrap(raw_smp_processor_id(), cpu_online_mask);
>
This looks ok to me. The only nit is that often folks like to see the
$Subject line look like:
$topic: Capitalized description.
So for this one:
clocksource: Fix opencoded cpumask_next_wrap()
Acked-by: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
thanks
-john