From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chen Gang Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arch: s390: kernel: scan all present cpu forcely. Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:22:55 +0800 Message-ID: <51CC046F.2050009@asianux.com> References: <51C8F685.6000209@asianux.com> <20130625064832.GA4999@osiris> <51C94599.1020707@asianux.com> <20130625090928.GA8981@osiris> <51CBA6B6.1010809@asianux.com> <20130627081845.GA3824@osiris> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from intranet.asianux.com ([58.214.24.6]:36207 "EHLO intranet.asianux.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751003Ab3F0JXs (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 05:23:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130627081845.GA3824@osiris> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Heiko Carstens Cc: Chen Gang , Martin Schwidefsky , linux390@de.ibm.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, Thomas Gleixner , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux-Arch On 06/27/2013 04:18 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:43:02AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >> > The architectures which may support 'hotpluggable', can scan all cpus >> > during subsys_initcall(). the upper caller will skip the return value. >> > >> > It also can initialize hotpluggable flag of all cpus in time, no matter >> > whether any cpus fail or not. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Chen Gang >> > --- >> > arch/s390/kernel/smp.c | 5 +++-- >> > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/smp.c b/arch/s390/kernel/smp.c >> > index d386c4e..75a118f 100644 >> > --- a/arch/s390/kernel/smp.c >> > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/smp.c >> > @@ -1064,8 +1064,9 @@ static int __init s390_smp_init(void) >> > #endif >> > for_each_present_cpu(cpu) { >> > rc = smp_add_present_cpu(cpu); >> > - if (rc) >> > - return rc; >> > + if (unlikely(rc)) >> > + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: add cpu %d failed (%d)\n", >> > + __func__, cpu, rc); > I have no idea how the patch description is supposed to correlate with > your patch. Pardon, excuse me, my English is not quite well. > However your patch doesn't make sense anyway. At least it will continue to try to "add present cpu" as much as possible. And also make sure of all 'hotpluggable' set. > We have initcall_debug for .. initcall debugging, which your patch would > break in addition, since this function would now return 0 instead of the > return code. I have searched all another architectures, most of them are only return 0 in subsys_initcall(). Do you means we do not like them ? Thanks -- Chen Gang