On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 09:55:39AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 13.07.15 at 05:36, <chao.p.p...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > phys_proc_id is invalidated in remove_siblinginfo() which gets called > > before cpu_smpboot_free(). This means calling cpu_to_socket(cpu) in > > cpu_smpboot_free() is not possible to be correct. > > > > This patch invokes remove_siblinginfo() in cpu_smpboot_free(), > > immediately after the use for cpu_to_socket(cpu). > > You having picked that variant of the two I proposed, did you verify > that (as I said when talking about the alternative) there are no > hidden dependencies? If you didn't, or if for whatever else reason > there is any doubt, the less intrusive variant should be chosen at > least for now.
I just did some basic tests but I don't think I can conclude that I verified all the cases. Because of this, I'm glad to follow your advice to have a gentle fix. Chao _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
