Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpu_stop: implement stop_cpu[s]()

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, again.

On 05/04/2010 08:40 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Oh, I had code piece which wanted to discern between -ENOENT from
> non-excution and -ENOENT return from the work function which seems
> gone now.  I'll check things again and drop ->executed if everything
> looks okay.

Eh... now I remember.  If we start with ->ret = 0, stop_cpus() can't
return -ENOENT when none of the specified cpus executed without
tracking execution status (so the current code).  If we start with
->ret = -ENOENT, we can't tell whether all cpus executed successfully
or none has executed unless we BUG_ON() -ENOENT return from work
functions and let 0 return override -ENOENT.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/