From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from viefep32-int.chello.at (viefep32-int.chello.at [62.179.121.50]) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A51E5B6F1F for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2009 01:14:47 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpu: idle state framework for offline CPUs. From: Peter Zijlstra To: svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <20090806043351.GC14333@dirshya.in.ibm.com> References: <20090805142311.553.78286.stgit@sofia.in.ibm.com> <20090806015855.GA20596@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> <20090806043351.GC14333@dirshya.in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:03:18 +0200 Message-Id: <1249570998.32113.499.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Brown, Len" , Gautham R Shenoy , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" , Shaohua Li , Ingo Molnar , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "Darrick J. Wong" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:03 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote: > This was the > main objection to Venki's deepest sleep state for offline cpus patch. Well, my main objection was that is was a single raw function pointer without any management layer around it. We have the exact same mess with the idle routine - and that has bitten us in the past.