In message <201004210154.o3l1sxar001...@d01av04.pok.ibm.com> you wrote:
>
> Since there is nothing to stop an IPI from occurring to an
> offline CPU, rather than printing a warning to the logs,
> just ignore the IPI. This was seen while stress testing
> SMT enable/disable.
This seems like a recipe for disaster. Do we at least need a
WARN_ON_ONCE?
> Signed-off-by: Brian King <brk...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>
> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff -puN arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c~powerpc_xics_ipi_offline arch
/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c
> --- linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c~powerpc_xics_ipi_offline
2010-04-20 20:46:06.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6-bjking1/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c 2010-04-20 20:4
7:53.000000000 -0500
> @@ -545,7 +545,8 @@ static irqreturn_t xics_ipi_dispatch(int
> {
> unsigned long *tgt = &per_cpu(xics_ipi_message, cpu);
>
> - WARN_ON(cpu_is_offline(cpu));
> + if (cpu_is_offline(cpu))
> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>
> mb(); /* order mmio clearing qirr */
> while (*tgt) {
> _
FYI random white space change here.
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
>
Mikey
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
