linux-kernel - Re: Bulk CPU Hotplug (Was Re: [PATCH] Do not force shutdown/reboot to boot cpu.)

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]

Message-ID: <20130416094008.GA10382@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:40:08 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
Cc:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russ Anderson <rja@....com>, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	"rusty@...tcorp.com.au" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Bulk CPU Hotplug (Was Re: [PATCH] Do not force shutdown/reboot
 to boot cpu.)


* Robin Holt <holt@....com> wrote:

> I have the patches sort-of finished.  The patch set starts by
> moving the halt/shutdown/reboot functions over to a new
> kernel/reboot.c, next patch gets a checkpatch.pl cleanup to
> work, third patch is essentially the below patch against the
> new file, and the fourth patch introduces a kernel boot parameter.
> 
> That said, I don't like them because of the 'stable' marking for
> these patches.  I think I am going submit them with the
> existing patch first in the series, then introduce the kernel parameter,
> then move them to kernel/reboot.c, and finally pass checkpatch.pl.
> 
> Does that sound alright?

Yeah, that ordering sounds right.

If there are no objections from others I'll first apply the first patch (with a 
-stable tag), test it for a day, then apply the rest.

Even patch #1 probably won't make it for v3.9-final [there's too many potential 
downsides IMHO], but this could be one of the cases where marking a patch for 
-stable and merging it in the merge window is legit.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/