On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:41:05PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> diff -puN arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c~arch-x86-kernel-cpu-cpufreq-acpi-cpufreqc-avoid-cross-cpu-interrupts-by-using-smp_call_function_any arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c~arch-x86-kernel-cpu-cpufreq-acpi-cpufreqc-avoid-cross-cpu-interrupts-by-using-smp_call_function_any
> +++ a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -192,9 +192,11 @@ static void do_drv_write(void *_cmd)
>
> static void drv_read(struct drv_cmd *cmd)
> {
> + int err;
> cmd->val = 0;
>
> - smp_call_function_single(cpumask_any(cmd->mask), do_drv_read, cmd, 1);
> + err = smp_call_function_any(cmd->mask, do_drv_read, cmd, 1);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(err); /* smp_call_function_any() was buggy? */
> }
>
> static void drv_write(struct drv_cmd *cmd)
I'm ok with this going in, but I still wonder if we could have done it
all a lot easier, by making cpumask_any pick the current cpu if it was
in the mask instead of introducing yet another variant to an already
enormous api.
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
