linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] smp: Introduce a generic on_each_cpu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 3 Jan 2012 10:12:21 +0200
From:	Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
To:	Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] smp: Introduce a generic on_each_cpu_mask function

2012/1/3 Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 11:24:12 +0100, Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> @@ -102,6 +102,13 @@ static inline void call_function_init(void) { }
>>  int on_each_cpu(smp_call_func_t func, void *info, int wait);
>> /*
>> + * Call a function on processors specified by mask, which might include
>> + * the local one.
>> + */
>> +void on_each_cpu_mask(const struct cpumask *mask, void (*func)(void *),
>> +               void *info, bool wait);
>> +
>
>
> on_each_cpu() returns an int.  For consistency reasons, would it make sense
> to
> make on_each_cpu_maks() to return and int?  I know that the difference is
> that
> smp_call_function() returns and int and smp_call_function_many() returns
> void,
> but to me it actually seems strange and either I'm missing something
> important
> (which is likely) or this needs to get cleaned up at one point as well.
>

I'd say we should go the other way around - kill the return value on
on_each_cpu()

The return value is always a hard coded zero and we have some code that tests
for that return value. Silly...

It looks like it's there for hysterical reasons to me :-)

Gilad



-- 
Gilad Ben-Yossef
Chief Coffee Drinker
gilad@...yossef.com
Israel Cell: +972-52-8260388
US Cell: +1-973-8260388
http://benyossef.com

"Unfortunately, cache misses are an equal opportunity pain provider."
-- Mike Galbraith, LKML
--
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/