On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 09:28:12AM +0100, John Garry wrote: > > +/** > > + * group_mask_cpus_evenly - Group all CPUs evenly per NUMA/CPU locality > > + * @numgrps: number of groups > > this comment could be a bit more useful > > > + * @cpu_mask: CPU to consider for the grouping > > this is a CPU mask, and not a specific CPU index, right? Yes, I've updated the documentation to: /** * group_mask_cpus_evenly - Group all CPUs evenly per NUMA/CPU locality * @numgrps: number of cpumasks to create * @mask: CPUs to consider for the grouping * @nummasks: number of initialized cpusmasks * * Return: cpumask array if successful, NULL otherwise. Only the CPUs * marked in the mask will be considered for the grouping. And each * element includes CPUs assigned to this group. nummasks contains the * number of initialized masks which can be less than numgrps. cpu_mask * * Try to put close CPUs from viewpoint of CPU and NUMA locality into * same group, and run two-stage grouping: * 1) allocate present CPUs on these groups evenly first * 2) allocate other possible CPUs on these groups evenly * * We guarantee in the resulted grouping that all CPUs are covered, and * no same CPU is assigned to multiple groups */ struct cpumask *group_mask_cpus_evenly(unsigned int numgrps, const struct cpumask *mask, unsigned int *nummasks) > > + ret = __group_cpus_evenly(0, numgrps, node_to_cpumask, cpu_mask, nmsk, > > + masks); > > maybe it's personal taste, but I don't think that it's a good style to > always pass through 'fail' labels, even if we have not failed in some > step I'd rather leave it as it is, because it matches the existing code in group_cpus_evenly. And there is also alloc_node_to_cpumask which does the same. Consistency wins IMO.
