From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 13:31:54 +0530 > On 05/29/2012 12:46 PM, Yong Zhang wrote: > >> From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> 1) call_function.lock used in smp_call_function_many() is just to protect >> call_function.queue and &data->refs, cpu_online_mask is outside of the >> lock. And it's not necessary to protect cpu_online_mask, >> because data->cpumask is pre-calculate and even if a cpu is brougt up >> when calling arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask(), it's harmless because >> validation test in generic_smp_call_function_interrupt() will take care >> of it. >> >> 2) For cpu down issue, stop_machine() will guarantee that no concurrent >> smp_call_fuction() is processing. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> --- >> arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c | 6 ++---- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c >> index f591598..60e745c 100644 >> --- a/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c >> +++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c >> @@ -124,9 +124,9 @@ void __cpuinit smp_callin(void) >> while (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpuid, &smp_commenced_mask)) >> rmb(); >> >> - ipi_call_lock_irq(); >> + local_irq_disable(); > > > This looks odd. IRQs must not have been enabled at this point. > Just remove the call to local_irq_enable() that is found a few lines above > this line and then you won't have to add this call to local_irq_disable(). Agreed. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
