From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/20] SMP: Implement on_cpu() Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 09:46:25 +0300 Message-ID: <4691D9C1.4050309@qumranet.com> References: <11838956891287-git-send-email-avi@qumranet.com> <11838956893094-git-send-email-avi@qumranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: KVM , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Andi Kleen Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org [cc list restored] Andi Kleen wrote: >> This defines on_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). >> > > I think it would be better to fix smp_call_function_single to just > handle this case transparently. There aren't that many callers yet because it is > fairly new. > Well, smp_call_function_single() is arch specific whereas on_cpu() is generic code. Perhaps rename smp_call_function_single() to __smp_call_function_single() and on_cpu() to smp_call_function_single()? I dislike the loss of symmetry though. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/