On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 04:21:54AM -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> Should we add !cpu_present(cpu) check as well just to be consistent with checks
> in cpu_up() ? Probably better if we can move smp_prepare_cpu() to within cpu_up()?
>
> How does the attached patch look.
I think this is much better (except for a minot nit - see below).
[snip]
> @@ -49,7 +49,9 @@ void enable_nonboot_cpus(void)
>
> printk("Thawing cpus ...\n");
> for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, frozen_cpus) {
> + lock_cpu_hotplug();
> error = smp_prepare_cpu(cpu);
> + unlock_cpu_hotplug();
Can we remove this smp_prepare_cpu call also (since it is being called
in cpu_up() now in your patch)?
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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]
