Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:26:30 +0300 | | From | Avi Kivity <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 17/20] SMP: Implement on_cpu() |
| |
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
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |