On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:10:04AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> +int smp_call_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, bool pin, int (*func)(void *), void *par)
Why .pin and not .phys? .pin does not (to me) reflect the
hypervisor/physical-cpu thing.
Also, as per smp_call_function_single() would it not be more consistent
to make this the last argument?
> +{
> + struct smp_call_on_cpu_struct sscs = {
> + .work = __WORK_INITIALIZER(sscs.work, smp_call_on_cpu_callback),
> + .done = COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK(sscs.done),
> + .func = func,
> + .data = par,
> + .cpu = pin ? cpu : -1,
> + };
> +
> + if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
You might want to also include cpu_online().
if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids || !cpu_online(cpu))
> + return -ENXIO;
Seeing how its fairly hard to schedule work on a cpu that's not actually
there.
> +
> + queue_work_on(cpu, system_wq, &sscs.work);
> + wait_for_completion(&sscs.done);
> +
> + return sscs.ret;
> +}
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
