On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:28:38 +0530 Gautham R Shenoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just checked with Vatsa if there was any subtle reason why they > had put in the kthread_bind() in cpu.c. Vatsa cannot seem to recollect > any and I can't see any. So let us just remove the kthread_bind. > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- > kernel/cpu.c | 4 ---- > 1 files changed, 4 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-2.6.21-rc7/kernel/cpu.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.21-rc7.orig/kernel/cpu.c > +++ linux-2.6.21-rc7/kernel/cpu.c > @@ -176,10 +176,6 @@ static int _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu, i > /* This actually kills the CPU. */ > __cpu_die(cpu); > > - /* Move it here so it can run. */ > - kthread_bind(p, get_cpu()); > - put_cpu(); > - > /* CPU is completely dead: tell everyone. Too late to complain. */ > if (raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_DEAD | mod, > hcpu) == NOTIFY_BAD) So I cooked up a changelog and queued up the diff. But I have an uneasy feeling that things are getting a bit close to guesswork here. We have a huge amount of change pending in the kthread/workqueue/freezer area, partly because I decided not to merge most of the workqueue changes into 2.6.21. It'd be good if people could take some time to sit down and re-review the code which we presently have. I plan on sending it all off for 2.6.22 and there might be some glitches but it seems to have a good track record so far. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
