> On 6/7/07, Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > BTW: smp_call_function() simply returns 0 and
> > smp_call_function_single() simply returns -EBUSY when !SMP.
> > These appear to be just some ad hoc values. IMHO, we should
> > be going BUG() in both these cases because "other" CPUs for
> > !SMP are undefined / meaningless.
>
> 79974a0e4c6be6e9a3717b4c5a5d5c44c36b1653 from a couple
> weeks back (discussed on http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/14/68 i.e.
> [patch] Let smp_call_function_single return -EBUSY.) introduced
> this behaviour. [ Adding Heiko Carstens, Andrew and David Miller
> to Cc: list. ]
>
> I realized a warning would be more appropriate for this case than
> a BUG at the last moment ... this doesn't quite meet Linus' "You
> killed my father; prepare to die!" criterion :-)

Ugh, Gmail murdered this patch:

>  static inline int smp_call_function_single(int cpuid, void (*func)
> (void *info),
>                                            void *info, int retry, int wait)

Resending as attachment.