[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080428124049.GA6263@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:40:49 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: get_online_cpus() && workqueues
On 04/28, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 02:56:49PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Yes, possible, but it is not nice that work->func() can't just use
> > get_online_cpus()...
>
> Like I said, it depends on what they want to use it for. If it is just
> protection against the changing of the cpu_online_map then, it's simple
> as using get_online_map(), i.e the patch you provided.
>
> BTW, the other thing I am concerned about is the
> naming. Dont the names get_online_cpus() and get_online_map()
> appear very similar. The last thing we want is driver writers getting
> confused over what API to use!
Yes, yes, please forget this patch. I don't like 2 very similar nested
locks, this was a bad idea. I am talking about another (uncompiled)
patch I sent.
> > What do you think about another patch I sent? I am not happy with it,
> > and it certainly uglifies cpu.c, but it is simple...
>
> I am currently testing out the patchstack sent
> by peterz. Once that's done I will see if I can integrate this patch
> with the previous patches and repost the whole series.
OK.
Oleg.
--
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