Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:12:21 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] Generic smp_call_function(), improvements, and smp_call_function_single() |
| |
On Mon, Mar 24 2008, Luck, Tony wrote: > > Funky, how does accessing other CPU's per-cpu variables work on ia64 > > then? Perhaps I made some false assumptions. > > Having scared you to death with some of the strange weirdness of > ia64 ... it turns out that you made a trivial typo in the ia64 > specific part of the patch ... see below. > > With this patch and a hack to call init_call_single_data() early > enough the patch boots fine on ia64. > > -Tony > > commit 8ffe2551f04e55176f7f7935c5a3395cc641d514 > Author: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> > Date: Mon Mar 24 13:04:11 2008 -0700 > > [IA64] Fix typo'd call to generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt > > Should really be calling generic_smp_call_function_interrupt() for > the IPI_CALL_FUNC case. > > Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> > > diff --git a/arch/ia64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/ia64/kernel/smp.c > index fa26528..55cbc2c 100644 > --- a/arch/ia64/kernel/smp.c > +++ b/arch/ia64/kernel/smp.c > @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ handle_IPI (int irq, void *dev_id) > > switch (which) { > case IPI_CALL_FUNC: > - generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(); > + generic_smp_call_function_interrupt(); > break;
Doh, that was a pretty silly typo. Thanks, I've merged it with the patch!
So now I/we just need to figure out why the hack to call init_call_single_data() is needed. You seem to imply it was being called too late, I thought perhaps too early. Where did you stick the init_call_single_data() call in?
-- Jens Axboe
| |