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 <[email protected]> > To: "Chen, Gong" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected] > 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
