[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpomzsV+HhH9r3s0jJH_NT0bzdDEd+3k8bopPg9vtVHc5Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 19:47:15 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Linaro Networking <linaro-networking@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [LNG] Re: [PATCH 12/14] hrtimer: don't emulate notifier call to
initialize timer base
On 26 March 2014 18:10, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> I don't think this is such a good idea. Open-coding a part of that callback
> in the init routine can lead to loop-holes down the road:
We think that we are open-coding part of that callback here because it is
implemented that way on the first design.
Rather, we should have a common routine which should do all the work
required when a CPU comes up. And any modification should be done
to that code.
> what if someone
> changes or adds something to the CPU_UP_PREPARE switch-case, and forgets to
> do the same in the init-routine?
This is not a driver which only 2-3 people use. This part is so well reviewed
by so many highly smart people that this should never happen. And if it
happens than its nothing but a review mistake.
> It is more comforting to know that there is just one single place where CPU
> hotplug operations are handled (hrtimer_cpu_notify). That, in turn is good
> for reliability because it makes it easier to write bug-free code.
And for me that single place is: init_hrtimers_cpu() :)
--
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