On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 07:27:09PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> > But then we can still do something like the below, which doesn't change > > things and still gets rid of that dual function crud, simplifying > > smp_call_function_many again. > Nice! I will add it on top, if you don’t mind (instead squashing it). Not at all. > The original decision to have local/remote functions was mostly to provide > the generality. > > I would change the last argument of __smp_call_function_many() from “wait” > to “flags” that would indicate whether to run the function locally, since I > don’t want to change the semantics of smp_call_function_many() and decide > whether to run the function locally purely based on the mask. Let me know if > you disagree. Agreed. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
