2008/7/15 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>:
quoted text
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>>
>> The 'synchronization' point occurs even earlier - when cpu_down() ->
>> __stop_machine_run() gets called (as I described in my previous mail).
>>
>> My point was that if it's ok to have a _delayed_ synchronization
>> point, having it not immediately after cpu_clear(cpu, cpu_active_map)
>> but when the "runqueue lock" is taken a bit later (as you pointed out
>> above) or __stop_machine_run() gets executed (which is a sync point,
>> scheduling-wise),
>>
>> then we can implement the proper synchronization (hotplugging vs.
>> task-migration) with cpu_online_map (no need for cpu_active_map).
>
> [ ... ]
>
> In particular, it should tell you that the code is too hard to follow, and
> too fragile, and a total mess.
>
> I do NOT understand why you seem to argue for being "subtle" and "clever",
> considering the history of this whole setup. Subtle and clever and complex
> is what got us to the crap situation.

Fair enough, agreed.


quoted text
>
>                Linus
>

-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
--
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/