2011/7/27 KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > (2011/07/27 13:56), Yong Zhang wrote: >> KOSAKI Motonhiro noticed that the reader of /proc/interrupts >> could be preempted by cpu hotplug, thus the reader can get >> broken result due to show_interrupts() iterate every online >> cpu without any protection. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Keika Kobayashi <kobayashi.kk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Looks good. but I have a question. On last thread, kobayashi-san > suggested to use for_each_possible_cpu() and you wrote "+1". Yeah, for_each_possible_cpu() will make code more cleaner. so I give it my support. > >>> At that time, I suggested to change >>> from for_each_online_cpu() to for_each_possible_cpu(), >>> in /proc/interrupts. >>+1 >>Thus we could also avoid the issue pointed by KOSAKI Motonhiro. > > Why do you decide to use another way? But, as kobayashi-san has also said: In conclusion, we decided to remain /proc/interrupts. because it had been the way for a long time. So I don't want to raise an argument again :) Thanks, Yong -- Only stand for myself -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
