On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 17:38 +1000, Matt Evans wrote: > kexec_perpare_cpus_wait() iterates i through NR_CPUS to check > paca[i].kexec_state of each to make sure they have quiesced. > However now we have dynamic PACA allocation, paca[NR_CPUS] is not necessarily > valid and we overrun the array; spurious "cpu is not possible, ignoring" > errors result. This patch iterates for_each_online_cpu so stays > within the bounds of paca[] -- and every CPU is now 'possible'. > > Signed-off-by: Matt Evans <m...@ozlabs.org>
Looks good ..
Cautiously-acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mich...@ellerman.id.au>
> - if (!cpu_online(i)) {
> - /* Fixme: this can be spinning in
> - * pSeries_secondary_wait with a paca
> - * waiting for it to go online.
> - */
> - printk("kexec: cpu %d hw_cpu_id %d is not"
> - " online, ignoring\n",
> - i, paca[i].hw_cpu_id);
> - break;
> - }
I don't see how the state in the Fixme could ever happen, but maybe
Milton can seeing I think he wrote it?
cheers
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
