lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] Race between init_idle and reschedule_idle
Martin J. Bligh writes:
> Thanks to Alan Cox & Andrew Morton for showing me how to serialise
> the cpus to make the panic legible. The following patch holds back
> the boot cpu at the end of smp_init until all the secondarys have
> done init_idle:

One thing that bothers me about your patch is how it limits the number
of CPU's to the number of bits in an unsigned long. While I realise
there are other places that do the same (last time I looked), we
shouldn't be perpeturating these kinds of limitations.

I'd suggest you use an atomic_t instead. Increment for each CPU, and
decrement when each CPU is ready. Just test for 0 in your wait loop.
One less piece of code we have to overhaul later.

Regards,

Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
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/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans