On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Petr Tesarik wrote: > Well, if the user passes both nr_cpus and maxcpus parameters to the > kernel, I think it's fair to issue two warnings. But if everyone agrees > that only the maxcpus warning should be printed in that case, I can > send a version 2 of my patch.
Please remember that the market is full of motherboards with the extremely annoying behaviour of declaring ACPI objects for CPU cores that will never be available. This includes a large number of workstation and server boards at the very least, from at least one rather large vendor. As far as I know, we still don't have a way to realiably detect this and get rid of the ghost processors which will *NEVER* become online. Setting maxcpus or nr_cpus manually is the current way to avoid wasting runtime resources because of phantom cores that will never become reality. So, when you fix the bug that always supress the warnings, you will at the same time cause a regression on those boxes, which will now print undesired warnings. If the user has manually set nr_cpus or maxcpus, maybe it would be best to not print any warnings or alternatively to downgrade them to debug level? -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
