Paul E. McKenney wrote:
quoted text
> Only once per such CPU every grace period -- seems in the noise to me.
> But I should revisit, as I have changed things quite a bit since I
> made that decision many weeks ago.  ;-)
>
>   
Another small point:
Does your implementation support rcu_check_callbacks() with cpu != 
smp_processor_id()?
I don't think my locking would support it properly.
Thus:
- cpu != smp_processor_id() doesn't work.
- stack space for a useless parameter.
- the explicit cpu parameter prevents the rcu code from using get_cpu_var().

What about modifying the rcu_check_callbacks() prototype? I'd propose to 
remove the cpu parameter.

--
    Manfred
--
unsubscribe notice
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/