[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090422103609.GE1115@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:36:09 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@....com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 microcode: work_on_cpu and cleanup of the
synchronization logic
* Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com> wrote:
> 2009/4/22 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>:
> >
> > * Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +static long collect_cpu_info_local(void *arg)
> >> +{
> >> + struct collect_for_cpu *cfc = arg;
> >> +
> >> + BUG_ON(cfc->cpu != raw_smp_processor_id());
> >> +
> >> + return microcode_ops->collect_cpu_info(cfc->cpu, cfc->cpu_sig);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int collect_cpu_info_on_target(int cpu, struct cpu_signature *cpu_sig)
> >> +{
> >> + struct collect_for_cpu cfc = { .cpu_sig = cpu_sig, .cpu = cpu };
> >> +
> >> + return work_on_cpu(cpu, collect_cpu_info_local, &cfc);
> >> +}
> >
> > Couldnt this be done without work_on_cpu(), by using
> > smp_call_function()?
>
> It should be definitely possible. Will send an updated version.
>
> p.s. grrr... this idea should have come into my mind in the first place :-/
well you made all the hard work of tightening all the locking to
make this all real easy, right?
Ingo
--
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