Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Sun, 29 Jul 2018 12:56:46 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/10] smp,cpumask: introduce on_each_cpu_cond_mask |
| |
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:55 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> wrote: > > > > This seems to result in systems with ->has_wbinvd_exit > > only calling wbinvd_ipi on OTHER CPUs, and not on the > > CPU where the guest exited with wbinvd? > > > > This seems unintended. > > > > I guess looking into on_each_cpu_mask might be a little > > higher priority than waiting until the next Outreachy > > season :) > > The right approach might be a tree wise rename from smp_call_... to on_other_cpus_mask() it similar. The current naming and semantics are extremely confusing.
Ugh.
Renaming might be worth it, but at least one issue is that we are simply not very consistent.
For example. smp_call_function_many() does indeed explicitly ignore the current CPU.
But smp_call_function_any() (one "m" less) does _not_ ignore the current CPU, and in fact prefers it.
So it's not that smp_call_... should *generally* be renamed. Only some of the cases might be worth renaming.
And just a "rename and forget" isn't really great. As Rik's example shows, existing users should be checked too..
Linus
| |