Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:50:45 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: mmotm 2009-04-10-02-21 uploaded - forkbombed by work_for_cpu |
| |
So I applied this (commit 01599fca6758d2cd133e78f87426fc851c9ea725: "cpufreq: use smp_call_function_[single|many]() in acpi-cpufreq.c"), but just realized - because of a compiler warning - that this looks suspicious:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > @@ -283,7 +280,7 @@ static unsigned int get_measured_perf(st > unsigned int perf_percent; > unsigned int retval; > > - if (!work_on_cpu(cpu, read_measured_perf_ctrs, &readin)) > + if (smp_call_function_single(cpu, read_measured_perf_ctrs, &cur, 1)) > return 0; > > cur.aperf.whole = readin.aperf.whole -
How and why did that "read_measured_perf_ctrs, &readin" become "read_measured_perf_ctrs, &cur" when the work_on_cpu() was converted to "smp_call_function_single()"?
Looks like a bug. But such an odd one that I wonder whether there was some thought behind it? Andrew?
Linus
| |