[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200902042111.35543.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 21:11:35 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: travis@....com, mingo@...hat.com, davej@...hat.com,
cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.
On Wednesday 04 February 2009 13:31:11 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:14:31 +1030 Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> > I think you're right though: smp_call_function_single (or neat wrappers)
> > where possible, work_on_cpu which can fail for the others, and we'll just
> > have to plumb in the error returns.
>
> I bet a lot of those can use plain old schedule_work_on().
Which is where work_on_cpu started: a little wrapper around schedule_work_on.
We're going in circles, no?
Rusty.
--
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