Re: [PATCH 17/20] SMP: Implement on_cpu()

[Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>]

Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> And I think what's proposed is:
>
> 1. Change smp_call_function() semantics, to run given function
> on _all_ CPUs (thus getting rid of the on_each_cpu() "mistake")
>
> 2. Resort to (most probably implement another function?) using
> smp_call_function_mask() or flags appropriately to also serve
> the use cases where we need to run a given function on all
> _other_ CPUs
>
> Does this pointless/gratuitous code-churn really make sense?
> Definitely not to me ...


It's not proposed.  Andi mentioned it in passing.  The only churn is in 
this thread.

>
> [ For the _single() case we now have on_cpu() as you originally
> proposed, which I definitely like and fills the other gap in the API. ]
>
> So I still don't quite understand what is the need to change existing
> semantics of smp_call_function{_single} in the first place.
>

I imagine Andi's motivation was that most uses benefit from this change, 
and the rest don't suffer.  It's better not to have a proliferation of 
ever-so-similar APIs.


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function