From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753821AbaIOQzH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:55:07 -0400
Received: from g4t3426.houston.hp.com ([15.201.208.54]:4698 "EHLO
	g4t3426.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752224AbaIOQzF (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:55:05 -0400
Message-ID: <1410799463.28990.326.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] x86,cpu-hotplug: assign same CPU number to readded
 CPU
From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Cc: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, bp@alien8.de,
        gong.chen@linux.intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
        imammedo@redhat.com, huawei.libin@huawei.com,
        paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com>, Linn Crosetto <linn@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:44:23 -0600
In-Reply-To: <1410755159.5165.24.camel@marge.simpson.net>
References: <53CF2A81.7080505@jp.fujitsu.com>
	 <53D5CF2A.2030007@jp.fujitsu.com> <5407D27D.4020006@jp.fujitsu.com>
	 <54114D83.7070004@jp.fujitsu.com>
	 <1410755159.5165.24.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5 (3.8.5-2.fc19) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 06:25 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 16:21 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote: 
> > There is no response for two months since posting v4.
> > What can I do for pushing the patch to upstream?
> 
> Looks to me like we have two patches floating about for more or less the
> same problem, this one, and...
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/29/159
> 
> ..this one, which you reviewed, and HP both reviewed and tested.
> 
> We seem to kinda stuck with Boris having said don't diddle the
> cpu_llc_shared_map, but HP/Intel saying that this map diddling fixes
> their explosions.  If your alternative is preferred over diddling
> cpu_llc_shared_map, perhaps HP/Intel can test/confirm that their
> explosions stay gone? 

Well, Boris mentioned later in his email:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/22/201

And I agree with his assessment that both patches make sense.  

Thanks,
-Toshi