On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 12:43:15 +0100 Steffen Eiden <seiden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/15/22 12:23, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 12:09:53 +0100 > > Steffen Eiden <seiden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> What about using the smp wrapper 'smp_sigp(idx, SIGP_RESTART, 0, NULL)' > >> here as well? > > > > [...] > > > >> With my nits fixed: > > > > maybe I should add a comment explaining why I did not use the smp_ > > variants. > > > > the reason is that the smp_ variants check the validity of the CPU > > index. but in those places, we have already checked (directly or > > indirectly) that the index is valid, so I save one useless check. > > > on the other hand, I don't know if it makes sense to optimize for that, > > since it's not a hot path, and one extra check will not kill the > > performance. > > > I would prefer the use of the smp_ variant. The extra assert won't > clutter the output and the code is more consistent. > However, a short comment is also fine for me if you prefer that. I guess I'll use the smp_ variant and add a few lines in the patch description to explain that we're doing some extra checks, but the code is more readable > > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Steffen Eiden <seiden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >
