On 7/11/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
It's not proposed. Andi mentioned it in passing.
Ok, thanks for clarifying that.
-
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.
Satyam Sharma wrote:
And I think what's proposed is:
1. Change smp_call_function() semantics, to run given function
on _all_ CPUs (thus getting rid of the on_each_cpu() "mistake")
2. Resort to (most probably implement another function?) using
smp_call_function_mask() or flags appropriately to
On 7/10/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 7/10/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Satyam Sharma wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 7/9/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> on_each_cpu() was imho always a mistake. It would have been better
>
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On 7/10/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
>
> On 7/9/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> on_each_cpu() was imho always a mistake. It would have been better
>> to just fix smp_call_function() directly
>
> I'm not sure what you
On 7/10/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
>
> On 7/9/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> on_each_cpu() was imho always a mistake. It would have been better
>> to just fix smp_call_function() directly
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "fix" here, bu
Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
>
> On 7/9/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> on_each_cpu() was imho always a mistake. It would have been better
>> to just fix smp_call_function() directly
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "fix" here, but if you're proposing
> that we change smp_call_func
Hi,
ISTR participating in a similar discussion some time back, but ...
anyway, I don't like the change in semantics of smp_call_function()
being proposed here *at* *all* ...
On 7/9/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This defines on_cpu() which is similar to smp_call_function_single()
Avi Kivity wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Well, smp_call_function_single() is arch specific whereas on_cpu() is
Yes, but the few instances should be relatively easy to fix.
generic code. Perhaps rename smp_call_function_single() to
__smp_call_function_single() and on_cpu() to
smp_call_fun
Andi Kleen wrote:
Well, smp_call_function_single() is arch specific whereas on_cpu() is
Yes, but the few instances should be relatively easy to fix.
generic code. Perhaps rename smp_call_function_single() to
__smp_call_function_single() and on_cpu() to smp_call_function_single()?
> Well, smp_call_function_single() is arch specific whereas on_cpu() is
Yes, but the few instances should be relatively easy to fix.
> generic code. Perhaps rename smp_call_function_single() to
> __smp_call_function_single() and on_cpu() to smp_call_function_single()?
The low level function che
[cc list restored]
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> This defines on_cpu() which is similar to smp_call_function_single()
>> except that it works if cpu happens to be the current cpu. Can also be
>> seen as a complement to on_each_cpu() (which also doesn't treat the
>> current cpu specially).
>>
>
> I th
> This defines on_cpu() which is similar to smp_call_function_single()
> except that it works if cpu happens to be the current cpu. Can also be
> seen as a complement to on_each_cpu() (which also doesn't treat the
> current cpu specially).
I think it would be better to fix smp_call_function_sing
12 matches
Mail list logo
