lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-25 09:15    [W:0.993 / U:0.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site