[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201110132108.21201.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:08:20 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
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
On Thursday, October 13, 2011, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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?
No, I didn't, but I'm not sure about the x86 maintainers.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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