On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 01:51:21PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:26AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Even if we use another cpumask_t, whenever a cpu goes down or comes up, > > > that will be reflected in this map, no? So what's the additional > > > advantage of using it? > > > > The additional map allows the code to use something other than the > > lock_cpu_hotplug/unlock_cpu_hotplug, and also is robust against any > > changes to the hotplug synchronization mechanism. Might well be > > better just to use the current hotplug synchronization mechanism, > > but I was feeling paranoid. ;-) > > If it was doing something more complicated in the critical section other > than summing stuff up, I would probably recommend going for another map > instead of using the current hotplug synchronization. But for this case > the current hotplug synchronization would work just fine. > > I can very well understand your paranoia, but let me assure you, you are > not the only one ;-) OK, will try to keep an open mind... ;-) Thanx, Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
