On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:12:09PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 01:38:58PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 09:18:16AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote: > > > Add an abstract CPU core type that could be used by machines that want > > > to define and hotplug CPUs in core granularity. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> > > > [Integer core property] > > > Reviewed-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> > > > > Igor, Eduardo, > > > > Do you think we're comfortable enough with this abstract core concept > > to merge it now? If so which tree should it go through? > > TBH, I haven't reviewed the concept carefully. I hoped that > people that spent more time thinking about long-term plans > (especially Andreas) would help move the discussion forward, but > Andreas is moving away from QOM CPU. > > I need to review the previous discussions more carefully, but the > concept looks simple enough to me, and I don't think we should > hold spapr work because we want a Grand Plan for generic CPU > abstractions to be finished first. If David, Igor, and the people > working on spapr are happy with it, I trust their judgement. > > I just wish the interface was better documented, especially the > meaning of the "core" and "threads" properties. I would prefer to > have "core-id" as the property name instead of "core" (most of > the error messages related to it (in patch 08/15) say "core id").
Ok, I've renamed the properties to 'core-id' and 'nr-threads' as I
merged, which I think is clearer.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
