(2011/07/27 14:47), Yong Zhang wrote: > 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 :) Fair enough. thanks. Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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