On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:31:56 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Shouldn't put_cpu() take a (possibly dummy) `cpu' parameter, as
> returned by get_cpu()?
Yeah, that always seemed a bit screwy. Something like this...
--- a/include/linux/smp.h~a
+++ a/include/linux/smp.h
@@ -177,6 +177,15 @@ smp_call_function_any(const struct cpuma
#define put_cpu() preempt_enable()
/*
+ * This just exists to touch the `cpu' arg, to suppress unused var
+ * warnings
+ */
+static inline void put_cpu_nr(unsigned cpu)
+{
+ put_cpu();
+}
+
+/*
* Callback to arch code if there's nosmp or maxcpus=0 on the
* boot command line:
*/
_
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
