Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> Oh wait, the on_one_cpu() patch proposes on UP:
>
> +static inline int on_one_cpu(int cpu, void (*func)(void *info), void
> *info,
> + int retry, int wait)
> +{
>
> /* this needs a if (cpu == 0) check here, IMO */
>
> + local_irq_disable();
> + func(info);
> + local_irq_enable();
> + return 0;
>
> /* else WARN and return -EINVAL; */
>
> +}
>
> which is broken without the suggested additions, IMHO
> (this is what got me into this in the first place). There
> _is_ a difference between on_each_cpu() and the
> smp_call_function* semantics (as discussed on the other
> thread -- gargh! my mistake for opening this discussion up
> on so many threads), and in its current form on_one_cpu()
> has quite confused semantics, trying to mix the two. I guess
> on_one_cpu() would be better off simply being just an
> atomic wrapper over smp_processor_id() and
> smp_call_function_single() (which is the *real* issue that
> needs solving in the first place), and do it well.
>
This is on UP, so (cpu == 0) is trivially true.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to
panic.
-
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/
