On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:16:39AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 09:58 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 09:39:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 13:05 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > > > > On 5/25/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > call_r_s_f() still needs an urgent rerenaming though =B-) > > > > > > > > So does "call_r_s_f_here()" :-) > > > > > > That name makes me think of INTERCAL's 'DO COME FROM' statement. > > > And any code that makes one think of INTERCAL is say,.. special.. :-) > > > > Propose a better way to code this then? It's not my fault that dealing with > > callbacks in C is so messy. _here just massages one callback > > prototype (smp_call_function's) into another (cpufreq's) because > > both callbacks do the same in this case. > > I see you point; however a function called: > call_<some_other_function>_here() just doesn't make sense. It says as > much as: we should call some_other_function() but for some reason we > dont.
It's just different semantics between cpufreq and smp_call_functions. cpufreq doesn't execute on that CPU but gives you the cpu number, smp_call_* executes on that CPU but doesn't give you a cpu number. _here means call cpufreq callback on the current CPU. -Andi - 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/
