linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5 v2] kernel handling of CPU DLPAR

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:52:04 +1100
From:	Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>
To:	Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>
Cc:	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5 v2] kernel handling of CPU DLPAR

On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 10:40 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 13:14 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> >> This adds the capability to DLPAR add and remove CPUs from the kernel. The
> >> creates two new files /sys/devices/system/cpu/probe and
> >> /sys/devices/system/cpu/release to handle the DLPAR addition and removal of
> >> CPUs respectively.
> > 
> > How does this relate to the existing cpu hotplug mechanism? Or is this
> > making the cpu exist (possible), vs marking it as online?
> 
> This update makes the cpu exist, it does not mark the cpu online.
> 
> > 
> > Is some other platform going to want to do the same? ie. should the
> > probe/release part be in generic code?
> 
> I thought about making this generic code, perhaps a follow-on patch to move
> the creation of the probe/release files to generic code to see what the
> community thinks.  I would assume there would still need to be a arch and/or
> platforms specific callout to do the real work.

I'm not so worried about the code being generic, there's not much that
would be generic. More the mechanism. We don't want to add probe/release
to powerpc, and then have a different mechanism get added later by some
other platform, or generically.

But I guess you CC'ed lkml and there's not much more to do, I don't know
specifically who'd care about it.

cheers


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)