kernel/smp.c | 11 +++++------ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
The smp_call_function_many() kerneldoc comment got out of sync with the
function definition (bool parameter "wait" is incorrectly described as a
bitmask in it), so fix it up by copying the "wait" description from the
smp_call_function() kerneldoc and add information regarding the handling
of the local CPU to it.
Fixes: 49b3bd213a9f ("smp: Fix all kernel-doc warnings")
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
---
kernel/smp.c | 11 +++++------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -884,16 +884,15 @@ static void smp_call_function_many_cond(
* @mask: The set of cpus to run on (only runs on online subset).
* @func: The function to run. This must be fast and non-blocking.
* @info: An arbitrary pointer to pass to the function.
- * @wait: Bitmask that controls the operation. If %SCF_WAIT is set, wait
- * (atomically) until function has completed on other CPUs. If
- * %SCF_RUN_LOCAL is set, the function will also be run locally
- * if the local CPU is set in the @cpumask.
- *
- * If @wait is true, then returns once @func has returned.
+ * @wait: If true, wait (atomically) until function has completed
+ * on other CPUs.
*
* You must not call this function with disabled interrupts or from a
* hardware interrupt handler or from a bottom half handler. Preemption
* must be disabled when calling this function.
+ *
+ * @func is not called on the local CPU even if @mask contains it. Consider
+ * using on_each_cpu_cond_mask() instead if this is not desirable.
*/
void smp_call_function_many(const struct cpumask *mask,
smp_call_func_t func, void *info, bool wait)
On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 1:44 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > The smp_call_function_many() kerneldoc comment got out of sync with the > function definition (bool parameter "wait" is incorrectly described as a > bitmask in it), so fix it up by copying the "wait" description from the > smp_call_function() kerneldoc and add information regarding the handling > of the local CPU to it. > > Fixes: 49b3bd213a9f ("smp: Fix all kernel-doc warnings") > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> It's been a week and no feedback. Well, in the further absence of any, I'll assume no concerns and just queue this up. > --- > kernel/smp.c | 11 +++++------ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > --- a/kernel/smp.c > +++ b/kernel/smp.c > @@ -884,16 +884,15 @@ static void smp_call_function_many_cond( > * @mask: The set of cpus to run on (only runs on online subset). > * @func: The function to run. This must be fast and non-blocking. > * @info: An arbitrary pointer to pass to the function. > - * @wait: Bitmask that controls the operation. If %SCF_WAIT is set, wait > - * (atomically) until function has completed on other CPUs. If > - * %SCF_RUN_LOCAL is set, the function will also be run locally > - * if the local CPU is set in the @cpumask. > - * > - * If @wait is true, then returns once @func has returned. > + * @wait: If true, wait (atomically) until function has completed > + * on other CPUs. > * > * You must not call this function with disabled interrupts or from a > * hardware interrupt handler or from a bottom half handler. Preemption > * must be disabled when calling this function. > + * > + * @func is not called on the local CPU even if @mask contains it. Consider > + * using on_each_cpu_cond_mask() instead if this is not desirable. > */ > void smp_call_function_many(const struct cpumask *mask, > smp_call_func_t func, void *info, bool wait) > > > >
On Tue, Sep 16 2025 at 16:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 1:44 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> >> >> The smp_call_function_many() kerneldoc comment got out of sync with the >> function definition (bool parameter "wait" is incorrectly described as a >> bitmask in it), so fix it up by copying the "wait" description from the >> smp_call_function() kerneldoc and add information regarding the handling >> of the local CPU to it. >> >> Fixes: 49b3bd213a9f ("smp: Fix all kernel-doc warnings") >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > It's been a week and no feedback. > > Well, in the further absence of any, I'll assume no concerns and just > queue this up. Sorry, was distracted. No objections from my side. Did you queue it already?
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 10:31 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 16 2025 at 16:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 1:44 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > >> > >> The smp_call_function_many() kerneldoc comment got out of sync with the > >> function definition (bool parameter "wait" is incorrectly described as a > >> bitmask in it), so fix it up by copying the "wait" description from the > >> smp_call_function() kerneldoc and add information regarding the handling > >> of the local CPU to it. > >> > >> Fixes: 49b3bd213a9f ("smp: Fix all kernel-doc warnings") > >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > > > It's been a week and no feedback. > > > > Well, in the further absence of any, I'll assume no concerns and just > > queue this up. > > Sorry, was distracted. No objections from my side. Did you queue it > already? No, I didn't.
On Thu, Sep 18 2025 at 12:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 10:31 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 16 2025 at 16:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 1:44 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> >> >> >> >> The smp_call_function_many() kerneldoc comment got out of sync with the >> >> function definition (bool parameter "wait" is incorrectly described as a >> >> bitmask in it), so fix it up by copying the "wait" description from the >> >> smp_call_function() kerneldoc and add information regarding the handling >> >> of the local CPU to it. >> >> >> >> Fixes: 49b3bd213a9f ("smp: Fix all kernel-doc warnings") >> >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> >> > >> > It's been a week and no feedback. >> > >> > Well, in the further absence of any, I'll assume no concerns and just >> > queue this up. >> >> Sorry, was distracted. No objections from my side. Did you queue it >> already? > > No, I didn't. I pick it up
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 10:17 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 18 2025 at 12:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 10:31 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 16 2025 at 16:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 1:44 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > >> >> > >> >> The smp_call_function_many() kerneldoc comment got out of sync with the > >> >> function definition (bool parameter "wait" is incorrectly described as a > >> >> bitmask in it), so fix it up by copying the "wait" description from the > >> >> smp_call_function() kerneldoc and add information regarding the handling > >> >> of the local CPU to it. > >> >> > >> >> Fixes: 49b3bd213a9f ("smp: Fix all kernel-doc warnings") > >> >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > >> > > >> > It's been a week and no feedback. > >> > > >> > Well, in the further absence of any, I'll assume no concerns and just > >> > queue this up. > >> > >> Sorry, was distracted. No objections from my side. Did you queue it > >> already? > > > > No, I didn't. > > I pick it up Thanks!
The following commit has been merged into the smp/core branch of tip:
Commit-ID: ccf09357ffef2ab472369ab9cdf470c9bc9b821a
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/ccf09357ffef2ab472369ab9cdf470c9bc9b821a
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
AuthorDate: Tue, 09 Sep 2025 13:44:14 +02:00
Committer: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
CommitterDate: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 22:21:28 +02:00
smp: Fix up and expand the smp_call_function_many() kerneldoc
The smp_call_function_many() kerneldoc comment got out of sync with the
function definition (bool parameter "wait" is incorrectly described as a
bitmask in it), so fix it up by copying the "wait" description from the
smp_call_function() kerneldoc and add information regarding the handling
of the local CPU to it.
Fixes: 49b3bd213a9f ("smp: Fix all kernel-doc warnings")
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
---
kernel/smp.c | 11 +++++------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index 56f83aa..02f5229 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -884,16 +884,15 @@ static void smp_call_function_many_cond(const struct cpumask *mask,
* @mask: The set of cpus to run on (only runs on online subset).
* @func: The function to run. This must be fast and non-blocking.
* @info: An arbitrary pointer to pass to the function.
- * @wait: Bitmask that controls the operation. If %SCF_WAIT is set, wait
- * (atomically) until function has completed on other CPUs. If
- * %SCF_RUN_LOCAL is set, the function will also be run locally
- * if the local CPU is set in the @cpumask.
- *
- * If @wait is true, then returns once @func has returned.
+ * @wait: If true, wait (atomically) until function has completed
+ * on other CPUs.
*
* You must not call this function with disabled interrupts or from a
* hardware interrupt handler or from a bottom half handler. Preemption
* must be disabled when calling this function.
+ *
+ * @func is not called on the local CPU even if @mask contains it. Consider
+ * using on_each_cpu_cond_mask() instead if this is not desirable.
*/
void smp_call_function_many(const struct cpumask *mask,
smp_call_func_t func, void *info, bool wait)
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.