[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200205143409.GA7021@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:34:09 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-team@...com, tglx@...utronix.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk, nico@...xnic.net
Subject: [PATCH UP] Make smp_call_function_single() match SMP semantics
In CONFIG_SMP=y kernels, smp_call_function_single() returns -ENXIO when
invoked for a non-existent CPU. In contrast, in CONFIG_SMP=n kernels,
a splat is emitted and smp_call_function_single() otherwise silently
ignores its "cpu" argument, instead pretending that the caller intended
to have something happen on CPU 0. Given that there is now code that
expects smp_call_function_single() to return an error if a bad CPU was
specified, this difference in semantics needs to be addressed.
This commit therefore brings the semantics of the CONFIG_SMP=n version
of smp_call_function_single() into alignment with its CONFIG_SMP=y
counterpart.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
---
up.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/up.c b/kernel/up.c
index 862b460..a504e81 100644
--- a/kernel/up.c
+++ b/kernel/up.c
@@ -14,7 +14,8 @@ int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
{
unsigned long flags;
- WARN_ON(cpu != 0);
+ if (cpu != 0)
+ return -ENXIO;
local_irq_save(flags);
func(info);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists