Hi Eduard,

Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu wrote:
quoted text
> @@ -578,12 +592,15 @@ struct rchan *relay_open(const char *base_filename,
>  	chan->alloc_size = FIX_SIZE(subbuf_size * n_subbufs);
>  	chan->parent = parent;
>  	chan->private_data = private_data;
> -	strlcpy(chan->base_filename, base_filename, NAME_MAX);
> +	if (base_filename) {
> +		chan->has_base_filename = 1;
> +		strlcpy(chan->base_filename, base_filename, NAME_MAX);
> +	}
>  	setup_callbacks(chan, cb);
>  	kref_init(&chan->kref);
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&relay_channels_mutex);
> -	for_each_online_cpu(i) {
> +	for_each_present_cpu(i) {
>  		chan->buf[i] = relay_open_buf(chan, i);
>  		if (!chan->buf[i])
>  			goto free_bufs;
> @@ -594,7 +611,7 @@ struct rchan *relay_open(const char *base_filename,
>  	return chan;
>  
>  free_bufs:
> -	for_each_online_cpu(i) {
> +	for_each_present_cpu(i) {
>  		if (!chan->buf[i])
>  			break;
>  		relay_close_buf(chan->buf[i]);

Why do we need to change for_each_online_cpu to for_each_present_cpu?
I guess it's because we don't have all the CPUs online at early
boot? Wouldn't it then be better to implement CPU hotplug support
instead?

		Pekka
--
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/