From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:19:49 +0200 From: Heiko Carstens Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: fix rollback during error-out in __cpu_disable() Message-ID: <20160408061949.GA3433@osiris> References: <20160405104912.GC3937@osiris> <57039DC2.6090907@linutronix.de> <20160405112336.GB6890@osiris> <20160405113637.GC6890@osiris> <20160405115129.GE30124@linutronix.de> <5703A836.7030708@linutronix.de> <20160405121155.GF6890@osiris> <20160405155904.GA19022@linutronix.de> <20160406195133.GB3485@osiris> <57067938.6030908@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57067938.6030908@linutronix.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Thomas Gleixner , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rt@linutronix.de, Martin Schwidefsky , Anna-Maria Gleixner List-ID: On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:14:00PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 04/06/2016 09:51 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > This fixes the issue that a second cpu_down() will take forever, if > > __cpu_disable() fails. > > Yes. But even without the second take down your CPU isn't complete up. > > > However it does not fix the issue that CPU_DOWN_FAILED will be seen on a > > different cpu than the cpu that was supposed to be taken offline. > > This is correct. It fixes only the regression you reported. > The CPU_DOWN_FAILED patches are on hold for now. Ok, I was bit confused here. So you may add Tested-by: Heiko Carstens if you want to :)