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 <b...@alien8.de>
> To: "Chen, Gong" <gong.c...@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mi...@kernel.org, t...@linutronix.de,
> pau...@samba.org, b...@kernel.crashing.org, tony.l...@intel.com,
> h...@zytor.com, jkos...@suse.cz, rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com,
> li...@arm.linux.org.uk, r...@linux-mips.org, schwidef...@de.ibm.com,
> da...@davemloft.net, v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk, fweis...@gmail.com,
> c...@linux.com, a...@linux-foundation.org, ax...@kernel.dk,
> jbottom...@parallels.com, ne...@suse.de, christoffer.d...@linaro.org,
> rost...@goodmis.org, r...@kernel.org, gre...@linuxfoundation.org,
> mho...@suse.cz, da...@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 :-)).
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
