[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1612102002590.18281@nanos>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 20:03:52 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@...cade.com>,
"M. Vefa Bicakci" <m.v.b@...box.com>,
Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
Juergen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/smpboot: Make logical package management more
robust
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 12/09/2016 06:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > > On 12/09/2016 05:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Boris, can you please verify if that makes the
> > > > topology_update_package_map() call which you placed into the Xen cpu
> > > > starting code obsolete ?
> > >
> > > Will do. I did test your patch but without removing
> > > topology_update_package_map() call. It complained about package IDs
> > > being wrong, but that's expected until I fix Xen part.
> >
> > That should not longer be the case as I changed the approach to that
> > management thing.
>
>
> I didn't notice this email before I sent the earlier message.
>
> Is these anything else besides this patch that I should use? I applied it to
> Linus tree and it didn't apply cleanly (there was some fuzz and such) so I
> wonder whether I am missing something.
No. I did it against tip, but there is nothing which it depends on.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists