From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753878AbaIPKIA (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:08:00 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]:43496 "EHLO mail-la0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753177AbaIPKH6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:07:58 -0400 Message-ID: <1410861633.5342.4.camel@marge.simpson.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] x86,cpu-hotplug: assign same CPU number to readded CPU From: Mike Galbraith To: Wanpeng Li Cc: Toshi Kani , Yasuaki Ishimatsu , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, bp@alien8.de, gong.chen@linux.intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, x86@kernel.org, imammedo@redhat.com, huawei.libin@huawei.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org, Wanpeng Li , Linn Crosetto Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:00:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: <54180899.4060408@gmail.com> References: <53CF2A81.7080505@jp.fujitsu.com> <53D5CF2A.2030007@jp.fujitsu.com> <5407D27D.4020006@jp.fujitsu.com> <54114D83.7070004@jp.fujitsu.com> <1410755159.5165.24.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1410799463.28990.326.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <1410839798.5149.22.camel@marge.simpson.net> <54180899.4060408@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 17:53 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > Hi Mike, > > 于 14-9-16 上午11:56, Mike Galbraith 写道: > > On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 10:44 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > >> On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 06:25 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 16:21 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote: > >>>> There is no response for two months since posting v4. > >>>> What can I do for pushing the patch to upstream? > >>> Looks to me like we have two patches floating about for more or less the > >>> same problem, this one, and... > >>> > >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/29/159 > >>> > >>> ..this one, which you reviewed, and HP both reviewed and tested. > >>> > >>> We seem to kinda stuck with Boris having said don't diddle the > >>> cpu_llc_shared_map, but HP/Intel saying that this map diddling fixes > >>> their explosions. If your alternative is preferred over diddling > >>> cpu_llc_shared_map, perhaps HP/Intel can test/confirm that their > >>> explosions stay gone? > >> Well, Boris mentioned later in his email: > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/22/201 > >> > >> And I agree with his assessment that both patches make sense. > > Nonetheless, this just reeks of "department of redundancy department". > > I have nothing against doing both really, but it does leave me wondering > > if we would not then be merging the mask clearing "just because". > > Maybe you miss my reply. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/29/40 Yes, I did. Thanks. -Mike