On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 02:43:31AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > >> After you move the cmci_rediscover() call, it is now in a place where we > >> are > >> no longer ignoring frozen (i.e. the old placement did the rediscover even > >> if the > >> CPU_TASKS_FROZEN bit was set - with the new placement we will skip > >> rediscovery. > >> > > That's not quite true. The existing code already ignores FROZEN for all the > cases, > by ignoring it at the top of the switch-case itself:
No, Tony's right and you got confused: Before my change, the code did: if (action == CPU_POST_DEAD) { /* intentionally ignoring frozen here */ cmci_rediscover(); } which is only CPU_POST_DEAD *without* the CPU_TASKS_FROZEN bit. If I move it in the switch-case, cmci_rediscover() *ignores the FROZEN bit and gets executed for both: CPU_DEAD: CPU_DEAD_FROZEN: because with the FROZEN bit masked out, they're the same. But we don't want to execute it for the FROZEN bit - look for the other two tests for CPU_TASKS_FROZEN in mce.c for an example. So, before we go and change the FROZEN aspect and break things in strange ways, let's keep the _FROZEN ignore. I certainly don't want to go down that road and chase why we needed FROZEN or not. Ok? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/