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 S1752488AbcLJTGq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sat, 10 Dec 2016 14:06:46 -0500
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:36893 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752162AbcLJTGo (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sat, 10 Dec 2016 14:06:44 -0500
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 20:03:52 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com>,
        "M. Vefa Bicakci" <m.v.b@runbox.com>,
        Alok Kataria <akataria@vmware.com>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
        =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juergen_Gro=DF?= <jgross@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/smpboot: Make logical package management more
 robust
In-Reply-To: <614d5d69-cfbb-59e8-2d63-ebc00705b82a@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1612102002590.18281@nanos>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1612081001230.3400@nanos> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1612092305060.3612@nanos> <8aa33de4-db18-759b-d2cb-0e25d5ab9d88@oracle.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1612092359550.3612@nanos> <614d5d69-cfbb-59e8-2d63-ebc00705b82a@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 12/09/2016 06:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > > On 12/09/2016 05:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Boris, can you please verify if that makes the
> > > > topology_update_package_map() call which you placed into the Xen cpu
> > > > starting code obsolete ?
> > > 
> > > Will do. I did test your patch but without removing
> > > topology_update_package_map() call. It complained about package IDs
> > > being wrong, but that's expected until I fix Xen part.
> > 
> > That should not longer be the case as I changed the approach to that
> > management thing.
> 
> 
> I didn't notice this email before I sent the earlier message.
> 
> Is these anything else besides this patch that I should use? I applied it to
> Linus tree and it didn't apply cleanly (there was some fuzz and such) so I
> wonder whether I am missing something.

No. I did it against tip, but there is nothing which it depends on.

Thanks,

	tglx