Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Nov 2006 19:54:30 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/4] introduce the mechanism of disabling cpu hotplug control |
| |
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:40:25 -0800 "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote:
> Add 'cpu_hotplug_no_control' and when set, the hotplug control file("online") > will not be added under /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/ > > Next patch doing PCI quirks will use this. >
I don't understand what this (ugly) patch has to do with the overall bugfix. We're fixing the APCI initialisation - what does that have to do with presenting cpu-hotplug files in sysfs?
> --- > > diff --git a/arch/i386/kernel/topology.c b/arch/i386/kernel/topology.c > index 07d6da3..9b766e7 100644 > --- a/arch/i386/kernel/topology.c > +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/topology.c > @@ -40,14 +40,22 @@ int arch_register_cpu(int num) > * restrictions and assumptions in kernel. This basically > * doesnt add a control file, one cannot attempt to offline > * BSP. > + * > + * Also certain PCI quirks require to remove this control file > + * for all CPU's. > */ > +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > + if (!num || cpu_hotplug_no_control) > +#else > if (!num) > +#endif
This ifdef could be removed
> cpu_devices[num].cpu.no_control = 1; > > return register_cpu(&cpu_devices[num].cpu, num); > } > > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > +int cpu_hotplug_no_control; > > void arch_unregister_cpu(int num) { > return unregister_cpu(&cpu_devices[num].cpu); > diff --git a/include/asm-i386/cpu.h b/include/asm-i386/cpu.h > index b1bc7b1..3c5da33 100644 > --- a/include/asm-i386/cpu.h > +++ b/include/asm-i386/cpu.h > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ struct i386_cpu { > extern int arch_register_cpu(int num); > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > extern void arch_unregister_cpu(int); > +extern int cpu_hotplug_no_control;
via:
#else #define cpu_hotplug_no_control 1
here.
But does this variable _have_ to be a negative like this? The code would be simpler if it had the opposite sense and was called, say, cpu_hotplug_enable_control_file.
Are these patches considered 2.6.19 material? They look a bit big, ugly and scary for that.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |