On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:54:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 04:40:16PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > @@ -90,10 +89,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(irq_work_queue);
> >
> > bool irq_work_needs_cpu(void)
> > {
> > - struct llist_head *this_list;
> > + struct llist_head *list;
> >
> > - this_list = &__get_cpu_var(irq_work_list);
> > - if (llist_empty(this_list))
> > + list = &__get_cpu_var(lazy_list);
> > + if (llist_empty(list))
> > return false;
> >
> > /* All work should have been flushed before going offline */
>
> Does this mean needs_cpu() only checks the lazy list? What about archs
> without the arch_irq_work_raise() function? They run the other list from
> the tick too.
Right, I'll fix that too.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
