On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:33:34 +0200 Frans Pop <[email protected]> wrote:
> (Dropped unrelated CCs.) > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > I'm not seeing any linux-acpi emails from Len since August 14. > > > > So I merged this patch and shall send it along with > > > > thermal_sys-check-get_temp-return-value.patch > > acpi-dont-call-acpi_processor_init-if-acpi-is-disabled.patch > > Thanks for that Andrew. Could you please do the same for my patches in > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13389 (or > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/17/169)? > > That BR is on the regression list for 2.6.30. The patches apply cleanly to > current mainline. > OK, shall do, thanks. These patches make rather a big mess in linux-next. Rusty's strangely-named patch: commit 6949d7cbb26476cbf1ee7b45ac74faacc9eb7cdf Author: Rusty Russell <[email protected]> AuthorDate: Thu Aug 13 10:26:38 2009 +1000 Commit: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> CommitDate: Thu Aug 13 10:26:38 2009 +1000 misc:work_on_cpu-acpi is now in the acpi tree. It changes the throttling code so that set/get_throttling is performed via smp_call_function_single() rather than via cpumask fiddling. So in my tree I reworked it so that the new `force' arg gets passed through appropriately. It compiles cleanly but I'd suggest that Len simply drop "misc:work_on_cpu-acpi" and we send it back to Rusty for some rechecking (sorry). Rusty/Len: please work out why the title for that patch went silly. Rusty, please self-administer smackings for struct set_throttling_info sti = { pr, p_throttling, t_state.target_state }; these things always start out simple and end up not-simple, so some poor schmuck has to clean them up so stuff doesn't break. struct set_throttling_info sti = { .pr = pr, .p_throttling = p_throttling, .target_state = t_state.target_state, .force = force }; is better! My linux-next repair job: drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff -puN drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c~linux-next-fixup drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c~linux-next-fixup +++ a/drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c @@ -1015,10 +1015,25 @@ static int acpi_processor_set_throttling return 0; } +struct set_throttling_info { + struct acpi_processor *pr; + struct acpi_processor_throttling *p_throttling; + int target_state; + bool force; + int ret; +}; + +static void set_throttling(void *_sti) +{ + struct set_throttling_info *s = _sti; + + s->ret = s->p_throttling->acpi_processor_set_throttling(s->pr, + s->target_state, s->force); +} + int acpi_processor_set_throttling(struct acpi_processor *pr, int state, bool force) { - cpumask_var_t saved_mask; int ret = 0; unsigned int i; struct acpi_processor *match_pr; @@ -1059,10 +1074,13 @@ int acpi_processor_set_throttling(struct * it can be called only for the cpu pointed by pr. */ if (p_throttling->shared_type == DOMAIN_COORD_TYPE_SW_ANY) { - /* FIXME: use work_on_cpu() */ - set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(pr->id)); - ret = p_throttling->acpi_processor_set_throttling(pr, - t_state.target_state, force); + struct set_throttling_info sti = { + .pr = pr, + .p_throttling = p_throttling, + .target_state = t_state.target_state, + .force = force }; + smp_call_function_single(pr->id, set_throttling, &sti, 1); + ret = sti.ret; } else { /* * When the T-state coordination is SW_ALL or HW_ALL, @@ -1093,11 +1111,12 @@ int acpi_processor_set_throttling(struct continue; } t_state.cpu = i; - /* FIXME: use work_on_cpu() */ - set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(i)); - ret = match_pr->throttling. - acpi_processor_set_throttling( - match_pr, t_state.target_state, force); + sti.pr = match_pr; + sti.p_throttling = &match_pr->throttling; + sti.target_state = t_state.target_state; + sti.force = force; + smp_call_function_single(i, set_throttling, &sti, 1); + ret = sti.ret; } } /* _ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
