* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But it's a general comment about fixing a general issue. The > > currently known case is not directly relevent; that it can happen and > > it's restricting the use of this otherwise-general API is. > > I think we should switch acpi-cpufreq to smp_call_function(), revert > this stuff and ban the calling of work_on_cpu() under locks. I agree that do_drv_read()/write() should be converted to smp_function_call() (what it does is atomic: msr or PIO cycles). Then work_on_cpu() can be removed for good, to not lure people into using it. You seem to agree that work_on_cpu() is unfixable so it's far better to offer nothing than to offer such a deceivingly named but fundamentally limited facility. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
