On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:49:54AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 28/08/14 10:38, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:30:06AM +0100, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote: > >> From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.p...@lge.com> > >> > >> This reverts commit 601c942176d8ad8334118bddb747e3720bed24f8. > >> > >> This patch is designed to ensure that the cpu being offlined is not > >> present in the affinity mask. But it is a bad idea to overwrite the > >> affinity variable with cpu_online_mask, even in case that the current > >> affinity already includes onlined cpus. > >> > >> So revert this patch to replace it with another one doing exactly > >> what it intends. > > > > Sudeep: what's the right way forward for this? There seems to be general > > agreement that the existing code is broken, but a bunch of different > > `fixes'. Can we just take a straight port of what tglx proposed for ARM? > > (changing force to false) > > > > Yes I agree but for that we need agreement from rmk and hence I asked to > wait till we hear from rmk. Main issue raised by rmk is if some other > interrupt controller implementation decide not to migrate away when > force is false(theoretically possible).
Okey doke. Whatever solution we take should be the same for arm and arm64, so I'll leave it with you. Will -- 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/
