From: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>
To: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@austin.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5 v2] kernel handling of CPU DLPAR
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:52:04 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1255654324.5626.53.camel@concordia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AD74261.9040504@austin.ibm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1410 bytes --]
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 10:40 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 13:14 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> >> This adds the capability to DLPAR add and remove CPUs from the kernel. The
> >> creates two new files /sys/devices/system/cpu/probe and
> >> /sys/devices/system/cpu/release to handle the DLPAR addition and removal of
> >> CPUs respectively.
> >
> > How does this relate to the existing cpu hotplug mechanism? Or is this
> > making the cpu exist (possible), vs marking it as online?
>
> This update makes the cpu exist, it does not mark the cpu online.
>
> >
> > Is some other platform going to want to do the same? ie. should the
> > probe/release part be in generic code?
>
> I thought about making this generic code, perhaps a follow-on patch to move
> the creation of the probe/release files to generic code to see what the
> community thinks. I would assume there would still need to be a arch and/or
> platforms specific callout to do the real work.
I'm not so worried about the code being generic, there's not much that
would be generic. More the mechanism. We don't want to add probe/release
to powerpc, and then have a different mechanism get added later by some
other platform, or generically.
But I guess you CC'ed lkml and there's not much more to do, I don't know
specifically who'd care about it.
cheers
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-16 0:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-18 14:56 [PATCH 0/5 v2] kernel handling of dynamic logical partitioning Nathan Fontenot
2009-09-18 14:59 ` [PATCH 1/5 v2] dynamic logical partitioning infrastructure Nathan Fontenot
2009-10-13 18:06 ` [PATCH 1/5 v3] " Nathan Fontenot
2009-09-18 15:01 ` [PATCH 2/5 v2] move of_drconf_cell definition to prom.h Nathan Fontenot
2009-09-18 15:02 ` [PATCH 3/5 v2] Export memory_sysdev_class Nathan Fontenot
2009-09-18 15:03 ` [PATCH 4/5 v2] kernel handling of memory DLPAR Nathan Fontenot
2009-10-13 18:13 ` [PATCH 4/5 v3] " Nathan Fontenot
2009-10-13 22:31 ` Michael Ellerman
2009-10-15 15:23 ` Nathan Fontenot
2009-09-18 15:04 ` [PATCH 5/5 v2] kernel handling of CPU DLPAR Nathan Fontenot
2009-10-13 18:14 ` Nathan Fontenot
2009-10-13 22:30 ` Michael Ellerman
2009-10-15 15:40 ` Nathan Fontenot
2009-10-16 0:52 ` Michael Ellerman [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1255654324.5626.53.camel@concordia \
--to=michael@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=nfont@austin.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).