Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: Use cpumask_next_wrap() in get_next_cpu()

[Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/7/25 4:48 AM, Fushuai Wang wrote:
> Replace the manual sequence of cpumask_next() and cpumask_first()
> with a single call to cpumask_next_wrap() in get_next_cpu().
>
> Signed-off-by: Fushuai Wang <wangfushuai@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   kernel/bpf/bpf_lru_list.c | 5 +----
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lru_list.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lru_list.c
> index 2d6e1c98d8ad..34881f4da8ae 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lru_list.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lru_list.c
> @@ -21,10 +21,7 @@
>   
>   static int get_next_cpu(int cpu)
>   {
> -	cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, cpu_possible_mask);
> -	if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> -		cpu = cpumask_first(cpu_possible_mask);
> -	return cpu;
> +	return cpumask_next_wrap(cpu, cpu_possible_mask);
>   }

Lets then get rid of the get_next_cpu() function since its only used
once, and just use the cpumask_next_wrap() at call site ?

[...]
                raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&steal_loc_l->lock, flags);

                steal = cpumask_next_wrap(steal, cpu_possible_mask);
        } while (!node && steal != first_steal);
[...]

Btw, in $subj please target [PATCH bpf-next] given its a cleanup,
not a fix.

Thanks,
Daniel