On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 16:13 +1000, Samuel Mendoza-Jonas wrote: > "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.
Well, if the scheduler doesn't give us the CPU at the point of kexec within a second, I think we are in pretty bad shape already, don't you think ? I don't mind bumping the timeout of you have worries... Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
