[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BDFC4D9.4030408@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 08:55:21 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
oleg@...hat.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, sivanich@....com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
josh@...edesktop.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpu_stop: implement stop_cpu[s]()
Hello, again.
On 05/04/2010 08:40 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Oh, I had code piece which wanted to discern between -ENOENT from
> non-excution and -ENOENT return from the work function which seems
> gone now. I'll check things again and drop ->executed if everything
> looks okay.
Eh... now I remember. If we start with ->ret = 0, stop_cpus() can't
return -ENOENT when none of the specified cpus executed without
tracking execution status (so the current code). If we start with
->ret = -ENOENT, we can't tell whether all cpus executed successfully
or none has executed unless we BUG_ON() -ENOENT return from work
functions and let 0 return override -ENOENT.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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