From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756473Ab1JMQGL (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:06:11 -0400 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:36461 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753466Ab1JMQGI (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:06:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:06:02 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Peter Zijlstra , bp@amd64.org, pavel@ucw.cz, len.brown@intel.com, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, lucas.demarchi@profusion.mobi, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, rdunlap@xenotime.net, vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ashok.raj@intel.com, tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Mutually exclude cpu online and suspend/hibernate Message-ID: <20111013160602.GJ6281@google.com> References: <20111010123102.15067.23128.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <201110122131.08811.rjw@sisk.pl> <4E9605C7.5070203@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201110130009.26552.rjw@sisk.pl> <4E9706D8.5040105@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E9706D8.5040105@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 09:12:16PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > Given that the microcode update hotplug optimization is going upstream, > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/13/258), we know that whether we want to call > it a bugfix or optimization, either way it *is* going to fix this bug. > And this current patchset's mutual exclusion approach was also aimed at fixing > the same bug since at the time it was written, discussion was still going on > about which solution would be better. I hate to sound like a broken recorder but the above patch isn't strictly correct for hot-swap cases, right? Let's please add revalidation before pushing that upstream. Rafael, did you already take that patch? Thanks. -- tejun