On 04/08/2014 11:19 AM, Michael wang wrote:
> Since v1:
> Edited the comment according to Srivatsa's suggestion.
>
> During the testing, we encounter below WARN followed by Oops:
Is there any more comments on this issue? Should we apply this fix?
Regards,
Michael Wang
&
CC: "Srivatsa S. Bhat"
CC: Alistair Popple
Suggested-by: "Srivatsa S. Bhat"
Signed-off-by: Michael Wang
---
arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 15 +++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
index 3
Hi, Srivatsa
It's nice to have you confirmed the fix, and thanks for the well-writing
comments, will apply them and send out the new patch later :)
Regards,
Michael Wang
On 04/07/2014 06:15 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 04/02/2014 08:59 AM, Michael wang wrote:
we won't continue the updating,
and empty updates[] was confirmed to show up inside
arch_update_cpu_topology().
What I can't make sure is whether this is legal, notify changes but no
changes happen sounds weird...however, even if it's legal, a check in
here still make sense IMHO.
Regards,
Michael Wa
CC: Paul Mackerras
CC: Nathan Fontenot
CC: Stephen Rothwell
CC: Andrew Morton
CC: Robert Jennings
CC: Jesse Larrew
CC: "Srivatsa S. Bhat"
CC: Alistair Popple
Signed-off-by: Michael Wang
---
arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c |9 +
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a
ine. CPUs going online during the call will
+ * not be seen or sent an IPI
It told people that the cpu could online during the call, but won't get
IPI, while actually they have a chance to get it, folks haven't look
inside may missed some thing when use it.
But it's just self-opinio
On 07/02/2013 04:25 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 07/02/2013 11:02 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
>> Hi, Srivatsa
>>
>> On 06/28/2013 03:54 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> @@ -625,8 +632,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(on_each_cpu_mask);
>>
I was a little confused about this comment, if the offline-cpu still
have chances to become online, then there is chances that we will pick
it from for_each_online_cpu(), isn't it? Did I miss some point?
Regards,
Michael Wang
> *
> * You must not call this function with disabled inte
