On Friday, 1 June 2007 21:48, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Cool. > >> > >> My patch does not change the functionality of the code just complains > >> very loudly that it is broken. > >> > >> Further the code is broken at a design level. The code isn't > >> problematic the code is impossible. The cpu hotplug code can not be > >> fixed on x86 without a redesign of the generic cpu hotplug code. > >> > >> Suspend does not need to use cpu hotplug because it already gets in > >> deep with the drivers, and can stop interrupts at the source. I know > >> there was some talk about this doing this earlier, but I don't know if > >> anything came of that discussion. > >> > >> Regardless if you care about this being a problem feel free to fix the > >> relevant code so it attempts to do something that the hardware > >> actually supports. > >> > >> But if the suspend needs this code for smp support it is also broken. > > > > Well, from the functionality point of view, it's not. We have no problems > > with it, at least not that I know of. > > Luck, or enough other issues someone hasn't tracked their problems > down to this. On the pure cpu hotplug path I just got a bug > report about it not working: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/31/419
[Apart from what I said in the other message:] In the hibernation/suspend code paths we call the CPU hotplug quite late, actually right before we turn off local IRQs on the only CPU that is not offlined. I think that at this point the majority of interrupt sources should have been turned off already. Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
