Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Bryce reported a bug wherein offlining CPU0 (on x86 box) and then subsequently
> onlining it resulted in a lockup.
>
> On x86, CPU0 is never offlined. The subsequent attempt to online CPU0
> doesn't take that into account. It actually tries to bootup the already
> booted CPU. Following patch fixes the problem (as acknowledged by
> Bryce). Please consider for inclusion in 2.6.16.
>
>
Is x86 the only architecture which is exposed to this?
>
> diff -puN arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c~cpuhp arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c
> --- linux-2.6.16-rc5/arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c~cpuhp 2006-03-14 14:42:26.000000000 +0530
> +++ linux-2.6.16-rc5-root/arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c 2006-03-14 14:43:21.000000000 +0530
> @@ -1029,6 +1029,12 @@ int __devinit smp_prepare_cpu(int cpu)
> int apicid, ret;
>
> lock_cpu_hotplug();
> +
> + if (cpu_online(cpu)) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto exit;
> + }
> +
> apicid = x86_cpu_to_apicid[cpu];
> if (apicid == BAD_APICID) {
> ret = -ENODEV;
a) It's hard for the reader to understand what that test is doing there
b) People copy code from x86, so other architectures which are not
exposed to this problem will end up having a pointless test in there.
IOW: please comment your code. I'll fix this one up.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
