[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87obfwixhb.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:31:04 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <rw@...utronix.de>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/40] CPU hotplug rework - episode I
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> So for me it's the "expose these states" that I get worried about.. A
>> random driver should not necessarily even be able to *see* this, and
>> decide to be clever and take advantage of the ordering.
>> 
>> So I'd hope there would be some visibility restrictions. We currently
>> have drivers already being confused by DOWN_PREPARE vs DOWN_FAILED etc
>> etc random state transitions, and giving them even more flexibility to
>> pick random states sounds like a really bad idea. I'd like to make
>> sure that drivers and filesystems etc do not even *see* the states
>> that are meant for the scheduler or workqueues, for example).
Yeah, I assume Episode II is where we collapse each into sane states
as Thomas clarified.  That can be reviewed: I'd hate to try to do it
in one go.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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
 
