On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:24:16 +0200 Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > on_each_cpu_mask calls a function on processors specified by > > cpumask, which may or may not include the local processor. > > > > You must not call this function with disabled interrupts or > > from a hardware interrupt handler or from a bottom half handler. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> > > CC: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> > ... > > --- > > __include/linux/smp.h | __ 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > __kernel/smp.c __ __ __ __| __ 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > __2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > Milton made the very sensible comment that while adding on_each_cpu() in the > arch generic code and removing the two arch specific instances from tile and arm > in separate patches is good for review, it will break bisect. > > He suggested I squash them into a single commit when it goes in. > > Since you picked the patch set into linux-mm, will now be a good time for that? I can fold the patches together - I do that all the time. Please identify exactly whcih patches you're referring to here. arm-move-arm-over-to-generic-on_each_cpu_mask and tile-move-tile-to-use-generic-on_each_cpu_mask should be folded into smp-introduce-a-generic-on_each_cpu_mask-function, yes? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>