Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_init 'CPUS done' looks strange

• Next message: Eric W. Biederman: "Kexec for v2.5.47-bk2"
• Previous message: Zwane Mwaikambo: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] Remove BUG in cpu_up"
• In reply to: Rusty Russell: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_init 'CPUS done' looks strange"
• Next in thread: Rusty Russell: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_init 'CPUS done' looks strange"
• Reply: Rusty Russell: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_init 'CPUS done' looks strange"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:

> In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211122246540.24523-100000@montezuma.mastecende.com>
> you write:
> > Also, it would make sense in the future if smp_cpus_done actually gets a
> > value denoting how many cpus are online.
>
> No. Drop the prink by all means, but smp_cpus_done() can call
> num_online_cpus() itself. It can't know how many cpus the user
> specified, however.

Doesn't that just encourage more (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++) usage? If you
make max_cpus available to everyone, at least they'll have the correct cpu
count to check against. max_cpus is needed by more than bootup.

        Zwane

-- 
function.linuxpower.ca
-
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/

• Next message: Eric W. Biederman: "Kexec for v2.5.47-bk2"
• Previous message: Zwane Mwaikambo: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] Remove BUG in cpu_up"
• In reply to: Rusty Russell: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_init 'CPUS done' looks strange"
• Next in thread: Rusty Russell: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_init 'CPUS done' looks strange"
• Reply: Rusty Russell: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_init 'CPUS done' looks strange"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 15 2002 - 22:00:29 EST