Re: [PATCH 2/8] x86: distinguish CPU offlining from CPU removal

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 05:48:40AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.07.18 at 12:53, <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:06:04AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > [...]
> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c
> >> @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ static cpumask_t scratch_cpu0mask;
> >>  cpumask_t cpu_online_map __read_mostly;
> >>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_online_map);
> >>  
> >> +bool __read_mostly park_offline_cpus;
> >> +
> >>  unsigned int __read_mostly nr_sockets;
> >>  cpumask_t **__read_mostly socket_cpumask;
> >>  static cpumask_t *secondary_socket_cpumask;
> >> @@ -887,7 +889,7 @@ static void cleanup_cpu_root_pgt(unsigne
> >>      }
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> -static void cpu_smpboot_free(unsigned int cpu)
> >> +static void cpu_smpboot_free(unsigned int cpu, bool all)
> > 
> > I think "all" is too vague. It doesn't convey the idea what constitutes
> > "partial". But I don't have any better suggestion either.
> 
> Indeed I've been trying to come up with a better name before
> posting, but couldn't. One thing though - I don't think the name
> should in anyway be required to express what "partial" means.
> 

A sentence or two to describe what !all is for would be helpful.

Wei.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel