[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A30C346.8070406@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:41:42 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: ego@...ibm.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
oleg@...hat.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm resend] cpuhotplug: introduce try_get_online_cpus()
take 3
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> I still think we should really avoid having to do this. trylocks are
> nasty things.
>
> Looking at the above, one would think that a correct fix would be to fix
> the bug in "thread 2": take the locks in the correct order? As
> try_get_online_cpus() doesn't actually have any callers, it's hard to
> take that thought any further.
>
>
Sometimes, we can not reorder the locks' order.
try_get_online_cpus() is really needless when no one uses it.
Paul's expedited RCU V7 may need it:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/22/332
So this patch can be omitted when Paul does not use it.
It's totally OK for me.
Lai
--
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