[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2871cf9d-ed8d-975f-ba46-429f8fe8560e@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:24:41 +0800
From: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] smp: Fix the comments of smp_call_function_many()
On 2021/12/14 2:05, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/12/21 7:57 PM, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
>> index 01a7c1706a58b1d..6ec884f41b7506d 100644
>> --- a/kernel/smp.c
>> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
>> @@ -861,6 +861,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(smp_call_function_any);
>> #define SCF_WAIT (1U << 0)
>> #define SCF_RUN_LOCAL (1U << 1)
>>
>> +/**
>> + * smp_call_function_many_cond(): Run a function on a set of CPUs.
>> + * @scf_flags: Bitmask that controls the operation. If %SCF_WAIT is set,
>> + * wait (atomically) until function has completed on other CPUs. If
>> + * %SCF_RUN_LOCAL is set, the function will also be run locally
>> + * if the local CPU is set in the @cpumask.
>> + */
>
> Fixing up the smp_call_function_many() comment is a good idea. But, the
> new smp_call_function_many_cond() comment duplicates these which are
> _just_ above it:
Yes, maybe we just need to list SCF_WAIT and SCF_RUN_LOCAL here.
>
>> /*
>> * Flags to be used as scf_flags argument of smp_call_function_many_cond().
>> *
>> * %SCF_WAIT: Wait until function execution is completed
>> * %SCF_RUN_LOCAL: Run also locally if local cpu is set in cpumask
>> */
>> #define SCF_WAIT (1U << 0)
>> #define SCF_RUN_LOCAL (1U << 1)
>
> Could we comment the bits in one place?
Yes, I think we should delete the line "Flags to be used ..."
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists