linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/20] SMP: Implement on

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4691D9C1.4050309@qumranet.com>
Date:	Mon, 09 Jul 2007 09:46:25 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, KVM <kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/20] SMP: Implement on_cpu()

[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 think it would be better to fix smp_call_function_single to just
> handle this case transparently. There aren't that many callers yet because it is
> fairly new.
>   

Well, smp_call_function_single() is arch specific whereas on_cpu() is
generic code.  Perhaps rename smp_call_function_single() to
__smp_call_function_single() and on_cpu() to smp_call_function_single()?

I dislike the loss of symmetry though.

-- 
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 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/