On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> > I'd rather no warnings were printed at all (user asked for that nr_cpus,
> > there is no reason to warn him about it),
> >[...]
>
> Agreed. This needs some cleanup.
>
> This code used to check against NR_CPUS, which is a compile-time
> constant, so the
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:07:04 -0300
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> > This results in:
> >
> > total_cpus = 1008 /* this is purely informative, it is *NOT* used
> > to size anything */
> > possible = 48 /* clampe
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> This results in:
>
> total_cpus = 1008 /* this is purely informative, it is *NOT* used
> to size anything */
> possible = 48 /* clamped to nr_cpu_ids */
>
> A warning message (with or without my patch):
> 1024 Proce
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:40:07 -0300
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> > Well, if the user passes both nr_cpus and maxcpus parameters to the
> > kernel, I think it's fair to issue two warnings. But if everyone agrees
> > that only the maxcpus warning sh
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> Well, if the user passes both nr_cpus and maxcpus parameters to the
> kernel, I think it's fair to issue two warnings. But if everyone agrees
> that only the maxcpus warning should be printed in that case, I can
> send a version 2 of my patch.
Please reme
Hi Jan,
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:34:34 +
"Jan Beulich" wrote:
> >>> On 15.02.14 at 15:02, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > @@ -1226,9 +1226,6 @@ __init void prefill_possible_map(void)
> > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> >
>>> On 15.02.14 at 15:02, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> @@ -1226,9 +1226,6 @@ __init void prefill_possible_map(void)
> #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> if (setup_max_cpus)
> possible += disabled_cpus;
> -#e
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 03:02:23PM +0100, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> Note that the check against i (value passed as maxcpus, but at least 1)
> is repeated further down, including the warning, but since possible is
> already clamped to max_cpus at that time, it is never printed. In fact,
> for the non-ho
Note that the check against i (value passed as maxcpus, but at least 1)
is repeated further down, including the warning, but since possible is
already clamped to max_cpus at that time, it is never printed. In fact,
for the non-hotplug case, the warning about exceeding maxcpus is only
ever printed i
9 matches
Mail list logo
