Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 Jul 2014 03:52:34 -0400 | From | "Chen, Gong" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v1 13/70] x86, x2apic_cluster: _FROZEN Cleanup |
| |
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:48:52AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:48:52 +0200 > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> > To: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@linux.intel.com> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, > paulus@samba.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, tony.luck@intel.com, > hpa@zytor.com, jkosina@suse.cz, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, > linux@arm.linux.org.uk, ralf@linux-mips.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, > davem@davemloft.net, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, fweisbec@gmail.com, > cl@linux.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, axboe@kernel.dk, > JBottomley@parallels.com, neilb@suse.de, christoffer.dall@linaro.org, > rostedt@goodmis.org, rric@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, > mhocko@suse.cz, david@fromorbit.com > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 13/70] x86, x2apic_cluster: _FROZEN Cleanup > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) > Well, look at the original code. What do you think happens if another > _FROZEN action comes in which we don't handle in the switch-case? > > Take a piece of paper and play it through slowly if you don't see it. > Hint: err = 0. > > > It looks like not quite comply with original logic. Once > > new FROZEN logic is added, we have to update this code again. How > > about using following code snippet: > > > > + if ((action & CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) && > > + ((action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) == CPU_UP_CANCELED)) { > > + __update_clusterinfo(this_cpu); > > + return NOTIFY_OK; > > No, this is different now from the original logic. > I'm silly. You are right. I will use your patch directly(I should do it at the beginning :-)). [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |