Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-09 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > I mean to say that we could have no CPU devices after the *second* > patch.  So the first patch is an extra defence against that.  (Though we > could just as well panic if register_cpu() fails at boot time.) I think I'd rather just panic -

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-09 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 02:06, richard -rw- weinberger wrote: > Instead of testing kernels I really should read more LKML. ;-) As an architecture maintainer, you want to read at least linux-arch. Gr{oetje,eeting}s,                         Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux bey

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-09 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 21:48, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Commit ccbc60d3e19a1b6ae66ca0d89b3da02dde62088b ('topology: Provide > CPU topology in sysfs in !SMP configurations') causes a crash at boot > on a several architectures.  The topology sysfs code assumes that > there is a CPU device for each onli

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-09 Thread Richard Weinberger
Am 09.01.2012 03:52, schrieb Ben Hutchings: > On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 17:29 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 5:06 PM, richard -rw- weinberger >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Linus Torvalds >>> wrote: Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would real

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-08 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 02:47 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 16:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice > > to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get > > a tested-by. > > > > Testing it

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-08 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 17:29 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 5:06 PM, richard -rw- weinberger > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Linus Torvalds > > wrote: > >> Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice > >> to hear from somebody with the a

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-08 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 16:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice > to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get > a tested-by. > > Testing it on hacked-up x86 sounds fine, but doesn't quite have the > same kind

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-08 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 5:06 PM, richard -rw- weinberger wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice >> to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get >> a tested-by. > > UML is affe

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-08 Thread richard -rw- weinberger
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice > to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get > a tested-by. UML is affected: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/8/186 I wasted an hour finding out why

Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-08 Thread Linus Torvalds
Ok, both of the patches look sane to me, but it would really be nice to hear from somebody with the actual affected architectures, and get a tested-by. Testing it on hacked-up x86 sounds fine, but doesn't quite have the same kind of "yes, this fixes the actual problem" feel to it. Also, can you c

[PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices

2012-01-08 Thread Ben Hutchings
Commit ccbc60d3e19a1b6ae66ca0d89b3da02dde62088b ('topology: Provide CPU topology in sysfs in !SMP configurations') causes a crash at boot on a several architectures. The topology sysfs code assumes that there is a CPU device for each online CPU whereas some architectures that do not support SMP or