From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935638AbZJPAwn (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:52:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758849AbZJPAwn (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:52:43 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:39707 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751068AbZJPAwm (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:52:42 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5 v2] kernel handling of CPU DLPAR From: Michael Ellerman Reply-To: michael@ellerman.id.au To: Nathan Fontenot Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4AD74261.9040504@austin.ibm.com> References: <4AB39FB3.1020608@austin.ibm.com> <4AB3A172.4090601@austin.ibm.com> <4AD4C3A3.5050103@austin.ibm.com> <1255473054.21871.39.camel@concordia> <4AD74261.9040504@austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-LiCUG5fWpGldCZ7cbDZY" Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:52:04 +1100 Message-Id: <1255654324.5626.53.camel@concordia> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-LiCUG5fWpGldCZ7cbDZY Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 10:40 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote: > Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 13:14 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote: > >> This adds the capability to DLPAR add and remove CPUs from the kernel.= The > >> creates two new files /sys/devices/system/cpu/probe and > >> /sys/devices/system/cpu/release to handle the DLPAR addition and remov= al of > >> CPUs respectively. > >=20 > > How does this relate to the existing cpu hotplug mechanism? Or is this > > making the cpu exist (possible), vs marking it as online? >=20 > This update makes the cpu exist, it does not mark the cpu online. >=20 > >=20 > > Is some other platform going to want to do the same? ie. should the > > probe/release part be in generic code? >=20 > I thought about making this generic code, perhaps a follow-on patch to mo= ve > the creation of the probe/release files to generic code to see what the > community thinks. I would assume there would still need to be a arch and= /or > platforms specific callout to do the real work. I'm not so worried about the code being generic, there's not much that would be generic. More the mechanism. We don't want to add probe/release to powerpc, and then have a different mechanism get added later by some other platform, or generically. But I guess you CC'ed lkml and there's not much more to do, I don't know specifically who'd care about it. cheers --=-LiCUG5fWpGldCZ7cbDZY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkrXw7QACgkQdSjSd0sB4dLuBQCfcDS+jmkHlLnWg2pgCNz6nFOB 2KoAmgPG7D5Rl2pPRvPTaafaJJssS3Di =1D4M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-LiCUG5fWpGldCZ7cbDZY--