Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> And I think what's proposed is:
>
> 1. Change smp_call_function() semantics, to run given function
> on _all_ CPUs (thus getting rid of the on_each_cpu() "mistake")
>
> 2. Resort to (most probably implement another function?) using
> smp_call_function_mask() or flags appropriately to also serve
> the use cases where we need to run a given function on all
> _other_ CPUs
>
> Does this pointless/gratuitous code-churn really make sense?
> Definitely not to me ...
It's not proposed. Andi mentioned it in passing. The only churn is in
this thread.
>
> [ For the _single() case we now have on_cpu() as you originally
> proposed, which I definitely like and fills the other gap in the API. ]
>
> So I still don't quite understand what is the need to change existing
> semantics of smp_call_function{_single} in the first place.
>
I imagine Andi's motivation was that most uses benefit from this change,
and the rest don't suffer. It's better not to have a proliferation of
ever-so-similar APIs.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
