[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111013160602.GJ6281@google.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:06:02 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, bp@...64.org,
pavel@....cz, len.brown@...el.com, mingo@...e.hu,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
rdunlap@...otime.net, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
ashok.raj@...el.com, tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk,
tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Mutually exclude cpu online and
suspend/hibernate
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 09:12:16PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Given that the microcode update hotplug optimization is going upstream,
> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/13/258), we know that whether we want to call
> it a bugfix or optimization, either way it *is* going to fix this bug.
> And this current patchset's mutual exclusion approach was also aimed at fixing
> the same bug since at the time it was written, discussion was still going on
> about which solution would be better.
I hate to sound like a broken recorder but the above patch isn't
strictly correct for hot-swap cases, right? Let's please add
revalidation before pushing that upstream. Rafael, did you already
take that patch?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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