From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751607AbcGSSx3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:53:29 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.220.42]:34813 "EHLO mail-pa0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750715AbcGSSx0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:53:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:53:20 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Dou Liyang Cc: cl@linux.com, mika.j.penttila@gmail.com, mingo@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, hpa@zytor.com, yasu.isimatu@gmail.com, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, gongzhaogang@inspur.com, len.brown@intel.com, lenb@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, chen.tang@easystack.cn, rafael@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 7/7] Provide the interface to validate the proc_id which they give Message-ID: <20160719185320.GN3078@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <1468913288-16605-1-git-send-email-douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <1468913288-16605-8-git-send-email-douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1468913288-16605-8-git-send-email-douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 03:28:08PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > When we want to identify whether the proc_id is unreasonable or not, we > can call the "acpi_processor_validate_proc_id" function. It will search > in the duplicate IDs. If we find the proc_id in the IDs, we return true > to the call function. Conversely, false represents available. > > When we establish all possible cpuid <-> nodeid mapping, we will use the > proc_id from ACPI table. > > We do validation when we get the proc_id. If the result is true, we will > stop the mapping. The patch title probably should include "acpi:" header. I can't tell much about the specifics of the acpi changes but I think this is the right approach for handling cpu hotplugs. Thanks. -- tejun