[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080715102130.GA22866@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:21:30 +0100
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] Introduce cpu_enabled_map and friends
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:03:27PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> writes:
> >
> > I don't understand why we want to know about these CPUs. Surely they
> > should be 'possible', but not 'present'? What useful thing can Linux do
> > with them?
>
> He explained it in the intro, near the end (I nearly complained about
> this too when I hadn't finished reading it completely :):
>
> |The big picture implication is that we can allow userspace
> |to interact with disabled CPUs. In this particular example,
> |we provide a knob that lets a sysadmin schedule any present
> |CPU for firmware deconfiguration or enablement.
>
> The reason sounds pretty exotic, but ok.
I don't see why this needs to be cross architecture then - shouldn't
the generic kernel only be concerning itself with things that are
possible, present and/or online?
If you have an interface which allows you to change the machines
configuration in a machine specific way, shouldn't that be something
for that machine to support and forced upon the entire kernel?
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists