Re: [PATCH] Make smp_call_function{_single} go WARNING and return -EINVAL on !SMP (was Re: [PATCH] i386/x86_64: NMI watchdog: Protect smp_call_function() within CONFIG_SMP)

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

 



On 6/7/07, Heiko Carstens <[email protected]> wrote:
> The smp_call_function{_single} functions are used to run
> given function on all {or speicified} *other* CPUs. For
> UP systems, "other" CPUs simply don't exist, so we flag
> such incorrect usage of these functions using a WARNING.

If other cpus don't exist then smp_call_function() should just do
*nothing* (there is no other cpu right?). We don't want to sprinkle
a ton of #ifdef CONFIG_SMP around each smp_call_function().

Yes, I suspected that, as mentioned on the other thread (ugh).

> Also, -EBUSY is generally returned by arch implementations
> when they find that target_cpu == current_cpu, which is not
> a comparable case to the !SMP case. Use -EINVAL instead,
> similar to what powerpc does for !cpu_online(target), which
> is somewhat more analogous.

No. Current semantics of smp_call_function_single() are that it
returns -EBUSY if called on the *current* cpu. Since on !CONFIG_SMP the
only possible cpu it can be called on is the current one, the only
sane return value is -EBUSY.

The inherent assumption that on !SMP the only possible CPU it
can be called on is current (== 0) is precisely what I would want
to be asserted formally in the code over here. If so, then return
-EBUSY, else -EINVAL?
-
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