From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753267Ab1JMTGB (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:06:01 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:39151 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751656Ab1JMTF7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:05:59 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Mutually exclude cpu online and suspend/hibernate Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:08:20 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.1.0-rc9+; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" , Peter Zijlstra , bp@amd64.org, pavel@ucw.cz, len.brown@intel.com, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, lucas.demarchi@profusion.mobi, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, rdunlap@xenotime.net, vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ashok.raj@intel.com, tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org References: <20111010123102.15067.23128.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <4E9706D8.5040105@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111013160602.GJ6281@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20111013160602.GJ6281@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201110132108.21201.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, October 13, 2011, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 09:12:16PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > Given that the microcode update hotplug optimization is going upstream, > > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/13/258), we know that whether we want to call > > it a bugfix or optimization, either way it *is* going to fix this bug. > > And this current patchset's mutual exclusion approach was also aimed at fixing > > the same bug since at the time it was written, discussion was still going on > > about which solution would be better. > > I hate to sound like a broken recorder but the above patch isn't > strictly correct for hot-swap cases, right? Let's please add > revalidation before pushing that upstream. Rafael, did you already > take that patch? No, I didn't, but I'm not sure about the x86 maintainers. Thanks, Rafael