[patch] Let smp_call_function_single return -EBUSY.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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.

Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>

This of course raises another question: it is not clear in which context
the smp_call_function* functions are supposed to be called. Should it be
with preemption disabled or is preemption enabled allowed as well?
If calling with preemption enabled is allowed then the powerpc implementation
is broken, since smp_processor_id() as well as num_online_cpus() may change
while they are accessed.

 include/linux/smp.h |    6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/smp.h
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/smp.h
+++ linux-2.6/include/linux/smp.h
@@ -99,11 +99,9 @@ static inline void smp_send_reschedule(i
 #define num_booting_cpus()			1
 #define smp_prepare_boot_cpu()			do {} while (0)
 static inline int smp_call_function_single(int cpuid, void (*func) (void *info),
-				void *info, int retry, int wait)
+					   void *info, int retry, int wait)
-	/* Disable interrupts here? */
-	func(info);
-	return 0;
+	return -EBUSY;
 #endif /* !SMP */
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/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux