[PATCH v5 09/45] smp, cpu hotplug: Fix smp_call_function_*() to prevent CPU offline properly

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On 02/11/2013 01:26 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 01:11:29AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 02/09/2013 05:37 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:05:10PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>> Once stop_machine() is gone from the CPU offline path, we won't be able to
>>>> depend on preempt_disable() to prevent CPUs from going offline from under us.
>>>>
>>>> Use the get/put_online_cpus_atomic() APIs to prevent CPUs from going offline,
>>>> while invoking from atomic context.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> Would it make sense for get_online_cpus_atomic() to return the current
>>> CPU number?
>>
>> Hmm, I'm not so sure. I tried to model it after get_online_cpus(), which doesn't
>> return anything (for other reasons, of course..)
>>
>> Moreover, a function name like *_cpu_* returning the CPU number would be intuitive.
>> But a name such as *_cpus_* (plural) returning a CPU number might appear confusing..
>>
>> And also I don't think it'll make a huge improvement in the callers.. (We might
>> be better off avoiding an smp_processor_id() if possible, since this function could
>> be called in very hot paths).. So I don't see a strong case for returning the
>> CPU number. But let me know if you think it'll still be worth it for some reason...
> 
> I just noted a lot of two-line code sequences in your patch that would be
> one line if the CPU number was returned.

Ah, in that case, I'll reconsider your suggestion while working on the next version.
Thanks!

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

>  But I don't feel strongly about
> it, so if people are OK with the current version, no problem.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
>