On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 05:34:51PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > No, I think you are right. Sorry for the delay in replying. > It indeed looks like we need not use ipi_call_lock/unlock() in CPU bringup > code.. > > However, it does make me wonder about this: > commit 3d4422332 introduced the generic ipi helpers, and reduced the scope > of call_function.lock and also added the check in > generic_smp_call_function_interrupt() to proceed only if the cpu is present > in data->cpumask. > > Then, commit 3b16cf8748 converted x86 to the generic ipi helpers, but while > doing that, it explicitly retained ipi_call_lock/unlock(), which is kind of > surprising.. I guess it was a mistake rather than intentional. Agree. I think it's a mistake(or leftover) too :) Anyway, let me cook a patch to throw a stone to clear the road. Thanks, Yong
