On 27/07/15 15:56, Stewart Smith wrote: > Samuel Mendoza-Jonas <sam...@au1.ibm.com> writes: >> Always include a timeout when waiting for secondary cpus to enter OPAL >> in the kexec path, rather than only when crashing. > > This *sounds* reasonable... but I wonder what actual worse case could > be and why we'd get stuck too long waiting for things? > > What was the original bug/problem that inspired this patch? > > and is 1s enough?
"It sounds reasonable" was more or less the inspiration :) While I was going over some of the code relating to the previous kexec fix with Ben he pointed this out and suggested there wasn't much of a reason to differentiate between a crashing/non-crashing cpu as far as the timeout goes - if we're not 'crashing' we still don't want to spin forever. I'll let Ben comment on whether 1s per cpu is enough. > > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev > -- ----------- LTC Ozlabs IBM _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
