Re: [PATCH] [14/58] x86_64: Add on_cpu_single

> But probably you should just drop this ... with smp_call_function_single's > new semantics, I don't see this function growing any users. The new sched-clock uses it, but i'll update it to use smp_call_function_single Thanks -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe

Re: [PATCH] [14/58] x86_64: Add on_cpu_single

Hi Andi, On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Call a function on a target CPU but do the right thing when we're already on that CPU. That's the main difference from smp_call_function_single which does the wrong thing in this case (erroring out) I think this is no longer the

[PATCH] [14/58] x86_64: Add on_cpu_single

Call a function on a target CPU but do the right thing when we're already on that CPU. That's the main difference from smp_call_function_single which does the wrong thing in this case (erroring out) Another advantage is that it is also defined for the UP case, avoiding some ifdefs. I also

[PATCH] [14/58] x86_64: Add on_cpu_single

Call a function on a target CPU but do the right thing when we're already on that CPU. That's the main difference from smp_call_function_single which does the wrong thing in this case (erroring out) Another advantage is that it is also defined for the UP case, avoiding some ifdefs. I also

Re: [PATCH] [14/58] x86_64: Add on_cpu_single

Hi Andi, On 7/19/07, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Call a function on a target CPU but do the right thing when we're already on that CPU. That's the main difference from smp_call_function_single which does the wrong thing in this case (erroring out) I think this is no longer the case,

Re: [PATCH] [14/58] x86_64: Add on_cpu_single

But probably you should just drop this ... with smp_call_function_single's new semantics, I don't see this function growing any users. The new sched-clock uses it, but i'll update it to use smp_call_function_single Thanks -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe