From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1VFC1o-00063I-2f for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:53:29 +0000 Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 278BA3EE0BC for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:53:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1730245DE52 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:53:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id F273045DE50 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:53:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B8D1DB8041 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:53:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.134]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A6D31DB803F for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:53:00 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <521FDE8D.4040807@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:51:41 +0900 From: HATAYAMA Daisuke MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86, apic: Disable BSP if boot cpu is AP References: <20130829092458.5476.10277.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6> <521F5297.4070906@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <521F5297.4070906@linux.intel.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=twosheds.infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jingbai.ma@hp.com (2013/08/29 22:54), H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 08/29/2013 02:27 AM, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote: >> This is the patch series to address the issue that kdump 2nd kernel >> now fails to wake up multiple CPUs. > > Please explain the "now" in the above sentence. Is this a regression? > If so, what is its impact? Is this something that needs to go into 3.11 > as a post-rc7 change, which means it better be hyper-critical? > > -hpa > > This is not a regression just as Eric explains. There is also my explanation in the description of the 2nd patch. I should have described so here explicitly. -- Thanks. HATAYAMA, Daisuke _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec