Re: [PATCH 0/5] Generic smp_call_function(), improvements, and smp_call_function_single()

[Jens Axboe]

On Mon, Mar 24 2008, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > Funky, how does accessing other CPU's per-cpu variables work on ia64
> > then? Perhaps I made some false assumptions.
> 
> Having scared you to death with some of the strange weirdness of
> ia64 ... it turns out that you made a trivial typo in the ia64
> specific part of the patch ... see below.
> 
> With this patch and a hack to call init_call_single_data() early
> enough the patch boots fine on ia64.
> 
> -Tony
> 
> commit 8ffe2551f04e55176f7f7935c5a3395cc641d514
> Author: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Mon Mar 24 13:04:11 2008 -0700
> 
>     [IA64] Fix typo'd call to generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt
>     
>     Should really be calling generic_smp_call_function_interrupt() for
>     the IPI_CALL_FUNC case.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> diff --git a/arch/ia64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/ia64/kernel/smp.c
> index fa26528..55cbc2c 100644
> --- a/arch/ia64/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/ia64/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ handle_IPI (int irq, void *dev_id)
>  
>  			switch (which) {
>  			      case IPI_CALL_FUNC:
> -				generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt();
> +				generic_smp_call_function_interrupt();
>  				break;

Doh, that was a pretty silly typo. Thanks, I've merged it with the
patch!

So now I/we just need to figure out why the hack to call
init_call_single_data() is needed. You seem to imply it was being called
too late, I thought perhaps too early. Where did you stick the
init_call_single_data() call in?

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/