Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:40:49 +0400 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: get_online_cpus() && workqueues |
| |
On 04/28, Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 02:56:49PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Yes, possible, but it is not nice that work->func() can't just use > > get_online_cpus()... > > Like I said, it depends on what they want to use it for. If it is just > protection against the changing of the cpu_online_map then, it's simple > as using get_online_map(), i.e the patch you provided. > > BTW, the other thing I am concerned about is the > naming. Dont the names get_online_cpus() and get_online_map() > appear very similar. The last thing we want is driver writers getting > confused over what API to use!
Yes, yes, please forget this patch. I don't like 2 very similar nested locks, this was a bad idea. I am talking about another (uncompiled) patch I sent.
> > What do you think about another patch I sent? I am not happy with it, > > and it certainly uglifies cpu.c, but it is simple... > > I am currently testing out the patchstack sent > by peterz. Once that's done I will see if I can integrate this patch > with the previous patches and repost the whole series.
OK.
Oleg.
| |