On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:16:00 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Igor Mammedov <imammedo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > /* > > + * wait for ACK from master CPU before continuing > > + * with AP initialization > > + */ > > + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_initialized_mask); > > + while (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpu_callout_mask)) > > + cpu_relax(); > > > + /* > > + * wait for ACK from master CPU before continuing > > + * with AP initialization > > + */ > > + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_initialized_mask); > > + while (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpu_callout_mask)) > > + cpu_relax(); > > That repetitive pattern could be stuck into a properly named helper > inline function. sure > (Also, before the cpumask_set_cpu() we should probably do a WARN_ON() > if the bit is already set.) The reason why there is no any WARN_ON or likes is that printk is quite complicated, takes looks and so on. So it's not safe at this point since CPU could be shot down by any time by INIT/SIPI until it's out of cpu_callout_mask loop. That said it's possible to add WARN_ON in do_boot_cpu() before cpu_initialized_mask is cleared, to achieve the same effect, so I'll stick it there. > > Thanks, > > Ingo -- Regards, Igor -- 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
