Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [24/48] Suspend2 2.1.9.8 for 2.6.12: 601-kernel_power_power-header.patch | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Date | Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:45:50 +1000 |
| |
Hi.
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 13:42, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > diff -ruNp 602-smp.patch-old/kernel/power/suspend2_core/smp.c 602-smp.patch-new/kernel/power/suspend2_core/smp.c > > --- 602-smp.patch-old/kernel/power/suspend2_core/smp.c 1970-01-01 10:00:00.000000000 +1000 > > +++ 602-smp.patch-new/kernel/power/suspend2_core/smp.c 2005-07-04 23:14:19.000000000 +1000 > > @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ > > +#include <linux/sched.h> > > + > > +void ensure_on_processor_zero(void) > > +{ > > + set_cpus_allowed(current, cpumask_of_cpu(0)); > > + BUG_ON(smp_processor_id() != 0); > > +} > > + > > +void return_to_all_processors(void) > > +{ > > + set_cpus_allowed(current, CPU_MASK_ALL); > > +} > > Do we really need to wrap these?
Fair enough. If I remember rightly, it's just a result of the flux with testing cpu hotplug, so I should certainly drop the wrappers.
Nigel -- Evolution. Enumerate the requirements. Consider the interdependencies. Calculate the probabilities. Be amazed that people believe it happened.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |