From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 4/7] SMP: Implement on_one_cpu() Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:42:16 +0300 Message-ID: <46559638.6@qumranet.com> References: <1180008615579-git-send-email-avi@qumranet.com> <11800086152009-git-send-email-avi@qumranet.com> <20070524133625.GA9863@osiris.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lhcs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: Heiko Carstens Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070524133625.GA9863@osiris.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 03:10:12PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> This defines on_one_cpu() which is similar to smp_call_function_single() >> except that it works if cpu happens to be the current cpu. Can also be >> seen as a complement to on_each_cpu() (which also doesn't treat the >> current cpu specially). >> >> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity >> --- >> include/linux/smp.h | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> kernel/softirq.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> +/* >> + * Call a function on one processor >> + */ >> +int on_one_cpu(int cpu, void (*func)(void *info), void *info, >> + int retry, int wait); >> >> > > Would you mind renaming that one to simply 'on_cpu'? It's even shorter and > clearly everybody will know what its purpose is. Also I doubt we will ever > have something like 'on_two_cpus'. > That was my first choice, but then I went for symmetry with on_each_cpu(). I'll rename it to on_cpu() unless there are objections. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function