Re: Fix Me in hpet.c

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 11/19/2014 06:58 PM, nick wrote:
> Greeting Thomas and other kernel coders,
> I am wondering about the fix in the code below and whether this is still valid as reading it seems to may no sense as 
> we are using completion variables and therefore the delayed version of schedule_work_on seems much better in this
> case. Further more I am pasting the code below from vim in order to make it easier for you.
> Cheers Nick 
> static int hpet_cpuhp_notify(struct notifier_block *n,
>                 unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
> {
>         unsigned long cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
>         struct hpet_work_struct work;
>         struct hpet_dev *hdev = per_cpu(cpu_hpet_dev, cpu);
> 
>         switch (action & 0xf) {
>         case CPU_ONLINE:
>                INIT_DELAYED_WORK_ONSTACK(&work.work, hpet_work);
>                init_completion(&work.complete);
>                  /* FIXME: add schedule_work_on() */
>                  schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu, &work.work, 0);
>                 wait_for_completion(&work.complete);
>                 destroy_delayed_work_on_stack(&work.work);
>                 break;
>         case CPU_DEAD:
>                  if (hdev) {
>                        free_irq(hdev->irq, hdev);
>                         hdev->flags &= ~HPET_DEV_USED;
>                         per_cpu(cpu_hpet_dev, cpu) = NULL;
>                }
>                 break;
>          }
>          return NOTIFY_OK;
> }
> 

Looks obsolete to me.  It might be interesting to look at the "git
blame" output for this code.

	-hpa

--
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/