From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FF26DDEE8 for ; Thu, 15 May 2008 16:51:38 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: PS3: Fix memory hotplug From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Geoff Levand In-Reply-To: <1210834125.8297.80.camel@pasglop> References: <4829C07A.4040407@am.sony.com> <1210834125.8297.80.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 23:51:29 -0700 Message-Id: <1210834289.8297.85.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" , Paul Mackerras , "David S. Miller" Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Paul, any thoughts here ? Should we add a lock ? That would mean being > careful as the LMB stuff can be called very early, and spinlock wants > things like PACA and possibly lockdep to be around.. Actually, we call early_init_devtree(), which populates the LMB, after we initialize the PACA and lockdep, so it -should- be safe to add a spinlock. Dave ? Any objection to adding a spinlock to the LMB code ? Cheers, Ben.