[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2846720.hM0WuNVsDY@wuerfel>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 10:49:09 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Wang Long <long.wanglong@...wei.com>, linux@....linux.org.uk,
santosh.shilimkar@...com, victor.kamensky@...aro.org,
nico@...aro.org, ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk, cov@...eaurora.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [SMP BUG?] the return value of is_smp() is bug?
On Monday 01 September 2014 19:35:34 Wang Long wrote:
> In kernel 3.17-rc2, when i set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = y
> in .config file. the secondary core can not boot.
>
> when i set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = n in .config file,
> the secondary core can boot.
>
> But this does not happen in kernel 3.10 lts kernel, Whether the
> CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP is set yes or no ,the secondary core can boot.
>
> Does the meaning of CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP changed or this is a bug in kernel 3.17-rc2 ?
>
>
> I write the following patch to test the return value of is_smp().
>
Can you check the value of CONFIG_SMP?
CONFIG_HAVE_SMP is set by platforms that allow enabling SMP, but you
still have the choice to set CONFIG_SMP on or off.
Arnd
--
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