Hi Namhyung,
On 01/29/2013 03:51 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Srivatsa,
>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:54 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> @@ -246,15 +291,21 @@ struct take_cpu_down_param {
>> static int __ref take_cpu_down(void *_param)
>> {
>> struct take_cpu_down_param *param = _param;
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:04:54PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> There are places where preempt_disable() or local_irq_disable() are used
> to prevent any CPU from going offline during the critical section. Let us
> call them as "atomic hotplug readers" ("atomic" because they run in atomic,
> no
Hi Srivatsa,
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:54 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> @@ -246,15 +291,21 @@ struct take_cpu_down_param {
> static int __ref take_cpu_down(void *_param)
> {
> struct take_cpu_down_param *param = _param;
> - int err;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int err = 0;
There are places where preempt_disable() or local_irq_disable() are used
to prevent any CPU from going offline during the critical section. Let us
call them as "atomic hotplug readers" ("atomic" because they run in atomic,
non-preemptible contexts).
Today, preempt_disable() or its equivalent works
