RE: [Hotplug_sig] [patch 1/1] Hot plug CPU to support physical add of new processors (i386)

2005-09-01 Thread Protasevich, Natalie
> Protasevich, Natalie wrote: > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > > > > + if (cpu_online(cpu)) { > > > > +#else > > > > if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu)) { > > > > +#endif > > > > ret = -EINVAL; > > > > goto out; > > > > } > > > > > >

Re: [Hotplug_sig] [patch 1/1] Hot plug CPU to support physical add of new processors (i386)

2005-09-01 Thread Nathan Lynch
Protasevich, Natalie wrote: > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > > > + if (cpu_online(cpu)) { > > > +#else > > > if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu)) { > > > +#endif > > > ret = -EINVAL; > > > goto out; > > > } > > > > Why this change? I think the cpu_present check is n

RE: [Hotplug_sig] [patch 1/1] Hot plug CPU to support physical add of new processors (i386)

2005-09-01 Thread Protasevich, Natalie
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > > + if (cpu_online(cpu)) { > > +#else > > if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu)) { > > +#endif > > ret = -EINVAL; > > goto out; > > } > > Why this change? I think the cpu_present check is needed for > ppc64 since it has non-pr

Re: [Hotplug_sig] [patch 1/1] Hot plug CPU to support physical add of new processors (i386)

2005-09-01 Thread Nathan Lynch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > + if (cpu_online(cpu)) { > +#else > if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu)) { > +#endif > ret = -EINVAL; > goto out; > } Why this change? I think the cpu_present check is needed for ppc64 since