[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46948626.6050308@qumranet.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:26:30 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
KVM <kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/20] SMP: Implement on_cpu()
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 also serve
> the use cases where we need to run a given function on all
> _other_ CPUs
>
> Does this pointless/gratuitous code-churn really make sense?
> Definitely not to me ...
It's not proposed. Andi mentioned it in passing. The only churn is in
this thread.
>
> [ For the _single() case we now have on_cpu() as you originally
> proposed, which I definitely like and fills the other gap in the API. ]
>
> So I still don't quite understand what is the need to change existing
> semantics of smp_call_function{_single} in the first place.
>
I imagine Andi's motivation was that most uses benefit from this change,
and the rest don't suffer. It's better not to have a proliferation of
ever-so-similar APIs.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-
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