On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 04:25:32PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > But this report only includes a single (cpu-up) part and therefore is
Thanks for fixing me, Peter. I thought '#1 -> #2' and '#2 -> #3', where #2 is 'cpuhp_state', should have been built with two different classes of #2 as the latest code. Sorry for confusing Michal. > not affected by that change other than a lock name changing.
