[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e6c49f30-b32a-4ad0-98e2-634113011f90@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 07:17:30 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Patryk Wlazlyn <patryk.wlazlyn@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, len.brown@...el.com,
artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] SRF: Fix offline CPU preventing pc6 entry
On 1/10/25 03:59, Patryk Wlazlyn wrote:
> Patryk Wlazlyn (4):
> x86/smp: Allow calling mwait_play_dead with an arbitrary hint
> ACPI: processor_idle: Add FFH state handling
> intel_idle: Provide the default enter_dead() handler
> x86/smp: Eliminate mwait_play_dead_cpuid_hint()
>
> arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h | 3 +++
> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c | 10 ++++++++
> arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 46 ++++-------------------------------
> drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 2 ++
> drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 15 ++++++++++++
> include/acpi/processor.h | 5 ++++
> 6 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
Is everybody happy with this now?
I noticed there are no Fixes: or Cc:stable@ tags on this. Should we be
treating this like a new feature or a bug fix?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists