From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: CPU Hotplug rework Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:28:01 +0100 Message-ID: <1332242881.18960.409.camel@twins> References: <4F674649.2000300@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F67474A.20707@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4F67474A.20707@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-alpha-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , Arjan van de Ven , Steven Rostedt , "rusty@rustcorp.com.au" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , Paul Gortmaker , Milton Miller , "mingo@elte.hu" , Tejun Heo , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-kernel , Linux PM mailing list , linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, Mike Frysinger On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 20:18 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > If there is anything I missed out, please feel free to add them here. > And suggestions are of course, always welcome :-) > OK, so I haven't fully read your list, but looking through the code today I found that alpha and blackfin call CPU_STARTING after set_cpu_online(, true), whereas all the other archs call CPU_STARTING before. Aside from that probably wanting to get fixed (not sure it actually breaks anything atm), this is another reason most of that wants to be generic code.