[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a781481a0706070848j2256cc1elea8723778ab7da5b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 21:18:37 +0530
From: "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
To: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>, "Alan Cox" <alan@...hat.com>,
"Heiko Carstens" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: [PATCH] Make smp_call_function{_single} go WARNING and return -EINVAL on !SMP (was Re: [PATCH] i386/x86_64: NMI watchdog: Protect smp_call_function() within CONFIG_SMP)
On 6/7/07, Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com> wrote:
> [...]
> BTW: smp_call_function() simply returns 0 and
> smp_call_function_single() simply returns -EBUSY when !SMP.
> These appear to be just some ad hoc values. IMHO, we should
> be going BUG() in both these cases because "other" CPUs for
> !SMP are undefined / meaningless.
79974a0e4c6be6e9a3717b4c5a5d5c44c36b1653 from a couple
weeks back (discussed on http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/14/68 i.e.
[patch] Let smp_call_function_single return -EBUSY.) introduced
this behaviour. [ Adding Heiko Carstens, Andrew and David Miller
to Cc: list. ]
I realized a warning would be more appropriate for this case than
a BUG at the last moment ... this doesn't quite meet Linus' "You
killed my father; prepare to die!" criterion :-)
---
The smp_call_function{_single} functions are used to run
given function on all {or speicified} *other* CPUs. For
UP systems, "other" CPUs simply don't exist, so we flag
such incorrect usage of these functions using a WARNING.
Also, -EBUSY is generally returned by arch implementations
when they find that target_cpu == current_cpu, which is not
a comparable case to the !SMP case. Use -EINVAL instead,
similar to what powerpc does for !cpu_online(target), which
is somewhat more analogous.
Signed-off-by: Satyam Sharma <ssatyam@....iitk.ac.in>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
---
include/linux/smp.h | 15 +++++++++------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
---
diff -ruNp a/include/linux/smp.h b/include/linux/smp.h
--- a/include/linux/smp.h 2007-06-07 12:46:50.000000000 +0530
+++ b/include/linux/smp.h 2007-06-07 21:13:29.000000000 +0530
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
* Alan Cox. <alan@...hat.com>
*/
+#include <linux/bug.h>
#include <linux/errno.h>
extern void cpu_idle(void);
@@ -84,11 +85,6 @@ void smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void);
* These macros fold the SMP functionality into a single CPU system
*/
#define raw_smp_processor_id() 0
-static inline int up_smp_call_function(void)
-{
- return 0;
-}
-#define smp_call_function(func,info,retry,wait) (up_smp_call_function())
#define on_each_cpu(func,info,retry,wait) \
({ \
local_irq_disable(); \
@@ -99,10 +95,17 @@ static inline int up_smp_call_function(v
static inline void smp_send_reschedule(int cpu) { }
#define num_booting_cpus() 1
#define smp_prepare_boot_cpu() do {} while (0)
+static inline int smp_call_function(void (*func)(void *info),
+ void *info, int retry, int wait)
+{
+ WARN_ON(1);
+ return -EINVAL;
+}
static inline int smp_call_function_single(int cpuid, void (*func)
(void *info),
void *info, int retry, int wait)
{
- return -EBUSY;
+ WARN_ON(1);
+ return -EINVAL;
}
#endif /* !SMP */
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists