On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:16:39AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 09:58 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 09:39:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 13:05 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > > On 5/25/07, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > call_r_s_f() still needs an urgent rerenaming though =B-)
> > > >
> > > > So does "call_r_s_f_here()" :-)
> > >
> > > That name makes me think of INTERCAL's 'DO COME FROM' statement.
> > > And any code that makes one think of INTERCAL is say,.. special.. :-)
> >
> > Propose a better way to code this then? It's not my fault that dealing with
> > callbacks in C is so messy. _here just massages one callback
> > prototype (smp_call_function's) into another (cpufreq's) because
> > both callbacks do the same in this case.
>
> I see you point; however a function called:
> call_<some_other_function>_here() just doesn't make sense. It says as
> much as: we should call some_other_function() but for some reason we
> dont.
It's just different semantics between cpufreq and smp_call_functions.
cpufreq doesn't execute on that CPU but gives you the cpu number,
smp_call_* executes on that CPU but doesn't give you a cpu number.
_here means call cpufreq callback on the current CPU.
-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/
[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]
