On 04/21/2010 05:49 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> In message <4bcf78e5.9020...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> you wrote:
>> On 04/21/2010 04:03 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
>>> In message <4bcf029b.1020...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> you wrote:
On 04/21/2010 08:35 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-2
In message <4bcf78e5.9020...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> you wrote:
> On 04/21/2010 04:03 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > In message <4bcf029b.1020...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> you wrote:
> >> On 04/21/2010 08:35 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 22:15 -0500, Brian King wrote:
> On 04/2
On 04/21/2010 04:03 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> In message <4bcf029b.1020...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> you wrote:
>> On 04/21/2010 08:35 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 22:15 -0500, Brian King wrote:
On 04/20/2010 09:04 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> In message <201004210154
In message <4bcf029b.1020...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> you wrote:
> On 04/21/2010 08:35 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 22:15 -0500, Brian King wrote:
> >> On 04/20/2010 09:04 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> >>> In message <201004210154.o3l1sxar001...@d01av04.pok.ibm.com> you wrote:
>
On 04/21/2010 08:35 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 22:15 -0500, Brian King wrote:
>> On 04/20/2010 09:04 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
>>> In message <201004210154.o3l1sxar001...@d01av04.pok.ibm.com> you wrote:
Since there is nothing to stop an IPI from occurring to an
>
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 22:15 -0500, Brian King wrote:
> On 04/20/2010 09:04 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > In message <201004210154.o3l1sxar001...@d01av04.pok.ibm.com> you wrote:
> >>
> >> Since there is nothing to stop an IPI from occurring to an
> >> offline CPU, rather than printing a warning to
On 04/20/2010 09:04 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> In message <201004210154.o3l1sxar001...@d01av04.pok.ibm.com> you wrote:
>>
>> Since there is nothing to stop an IPI from occurring to an
>> offline CPU, rather than printing a warning to the logs,
>> just ignore the IPI. This was seen while stress te
In message <201004210154.o3l1sxar001...@d01av04.pok.ibm.com> you wrote:
>
> Since there is nothing to stop an IPI from occurring to an
> offline CPU, rather than printing a warning to the logs,
> just ignore the IPI. This was seen while stress testing
> SMT enable/disable.
This seems like a recip
Since there is nothing to stop an IPI from occurring to an
offline CPU, rather than printing a warning to the logs,
just ignore the IPI. This was seen while stress testing
SMT enable/disable.
Signed-off-by: Brian King
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/xics.c |3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 inse