On 07/31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, cpumask)
> + arch_spin_lock((arch_spinlock_t *)&per_cpu(cpu_stopper.lock,
> cpu));
> +
> for_each_cpu(cpu, cpumask) {
> work = &per_cpu(cpu_stopper.stop_work, cpu);
> work->fn = fn;
> work->arg = arg;
> work->done = done;
> - cpu_stop_queue_work(cpu, work);
> + __cpu_stop_queue_work(cpu, work);
> }
> - lg_global_unlock(&stop_cpus_lock);
> +
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, cpumask)
> + arch_spin_unlock((arch_spinlock_t *)&per_cpu(cpu_stopper.lock,
> cpu));
Of course, we discussed this before and I think this should work too.
However to me this looks more ugly (although better than the current
code), and this is what I tried to avoid.
But! of course "more ugly" is very much subjective, so I won't really
argue if you prefer this change. That said, let me write another email
in reply to your initial review.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
