[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070607175127.GA22844@osiris.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:51:27 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [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)
> 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.
If other cpus don't exist then smp_call_function() should just do
*nothing* (there is no other cpu right?). We don't want to sprinkle
a ton of #ifdef CONFIG_SMP around each smp_call_function().
> 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.
No. Current semantics of smp_call_function_single() are that it
returns -EBUSY if called on the *current* cpu. Since on !CONFIG_SMP the
only possible cpu it can be called on is the current one, the only
sane return value is -EBUSY.
-
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