On Monday 14 May 2007 21:11, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2007 11:23:17 +0200 > > Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > All architectures that have an implementation of smp_call_function_single > > let it return -EBUSY if it is asked to execute func on the current cpu. > > Therefore the UP version must always return -EBUSY. > > smp_call_function_single() is a mess. > > - it's unclear to me why smp_call_function_single(cpu, ...) doesn't just > call the darn function if cpu==smp_processor_id().
I always wondered that too. Also I think we really need a cpu notifier that does smp_call_single automatically; i find myself reimplementing that multiple times. > - it's unclear to me why smp_call_function_single(cpu, ...) doesn't just > call the darn function if CONFIG_SMP=n. Yes. > > - it's unclear to me why smp_call_function_single(cpu, ...) isn't called > smp_call_function_on(cpu, ...) > > - the x86_64 version doesn't return -EBUSY: it returns zero. Despite its > claim "Retrurns 0 on success, else a negative status code.". Will fix. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
