On Tuesday 20 November 2007 01:28:03 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Rusty Russell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I think it would be easier to just fast-path the num_online_cpus == 1 > > case, even if you want to keep this "update_early" interface. > > Nope, that could lead to problems. I call core_immediate_update() > _very_ early, before boot_cpu_init() is called.
Ah, I see the problem. It would in fact be clearer for us to move boot_cpu_init() up to just after smp_setup_processor_id() in start_kernel anyway, not just for this code, but in general. > Therefore, > cpu_online_map is not set yet. I am not sure the benefit of using > num_online_cpus outweights the added fragility wrt other boot process > initializations. I think it's still a win, though worth a comment that we always go via the non-IPI path for the early boot case. Cheers, Rusty. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
