From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753105AbcGTA5J (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 20:57:09 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:32937 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752338AbcGTA5F (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 20:57:05 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,518,1449504000"; d="scan'208";a="8880347" Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 7/7] Provide the interface to validate the proc_id which they give To: Tejun Heo References: <1468913288-16605-1-git-send-email-douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <1468913288-16605-8-git-send-email-douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20160719185320.GN3078@mtj.duckdns.org> CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , From: Dou Liyang Message-ID: <438ce500-ec84-9f55-0422-d033a1f4590f@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 08:55:11 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160719185320.GN3078@mtj.duckdns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.226.106] X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: AB7CC4290FE0.AE00A X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 在 2016年07月20日 02:53, Tejun Heo 写道: > 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. I will change the title in the next version. Thanks. > Thanks. >