[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 11:01:27 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, hdegoede@...hat.com,
markgross@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
corbet@....net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, jithu.joseph@...el.com,
ashok.raj@...el.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
ravi.v.shankar@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/10] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Add scan test support
On Thu, May 05 2022 at 10:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 01:15:07AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> We don't have stomp_cpumask() today, but that's trivial enough to
>> implement.
>
> I don't think we want to gift people a random cpumask stop_machine(),
Fair enough.
> but here's one that stops a core. It runs the @fn on every cpu since I
> thought to have understood that was the requirement for this muck.
Yes.
> *completely* untestededed.
Looks about right neverthelessesseess.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists