[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120716112222.GF26723@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:22:22 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@...oniou-consulting.com>,
"mporter@...com" <mporter@...com>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"Russ.Dill@...com" <Russ.Dill@...com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [ARM] Unconditional call to smp_cross_call on UP crashes
(take #2)
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 08:59:39AM +0100, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> > index 8f46446..7babc3f 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> > @@ -590,7 +590,8 @@ void smp_send_stop(void)
> >
> > cpumask_copy(&mask, cpu_online_mask);
> > cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &mask);
> > - smp_cross_call(&mask, IPI_CPU_STOP);
> > + if (!cpumask_empty(&mask))
> > + smp_cross_call(&mask, IPI_CPU_STOP);
I wonder whether we shouldn't have a default smp_cross_call implementation
with BUG_ON(!cpumask_empty(&mask)). It's marginally nicer than an explicit NULL
deference and it would also fix your problem.
Will
--
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