[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160719185320.GN3078@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:53:20 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: cl@...ux.com, mika.j.penttila@...il.com, mingo@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, hpa@...or.com,
yasu.isimatu@...il.com, isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com,
gongzhaogang@...pur.com, len.brown@...el.com, lenb@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, chen.tang@...ystack.cn, rafael@...nel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 7/7] Provide the interface to validate the proc_id
which they give
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 03:28:08PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote:
> When we want to identify whether the proc_id is unreasonable or not, we
> can call the "acpi_processor_validate_proc_id" function. It will search
> in the duplicate IDs. If we find the proc_id in the IDs, we return true
> to the call function. Conversely, false represents available.
>
> When we establish all possible cpuid <-> nodeid mapping, we will use the
> proc_id from ACPI table.
>
> We do validation when we get the proc_id. If the result is true, we will
> stop the mapping.
The patch title probably should include "acpi:" header. I can't tell
much about the specifics of the acpi changes but I think this is the
right approach for handling cpu hotplugs.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists