[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140414091600.GA19771@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:16:00 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, bp@...e.de,
paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, JBeulich@...e.com, prarit@...hat.com,
drjones@...hat.com, toshi.kani@...com, riel@...hat.com,
gong.chen@...ux.intel.com, andi@...stfloor.org, lenb@...nel.org,
rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] x86: initialize secondary CPU only if master CPU
will wait for it
* Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com> wrote:
> /*
> + * wait for ACK from master CPU before continuing
> + * with AP initialization
> + */
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_initialized_mask);
> + while (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpu_callout_mask))
> + cpu_relax();
> + /*
> + * wait for ACK from master CPU before continuing
> + * with AP initialization
> + */
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_initialized_mask);
> + while (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpu_callout_mask))
> + cpu_relax();
That repetitive pattern could be stuck into a properly named helper
inline function.
(Also, before the cpumask_set_cpu() we should probably do a WARN_ON()
if the bit is already set.)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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