On 04/29/20 12:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:29 PM Qais Yousef <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 04/26/20 17:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > I would do this the other way around: > > > > > > 1. Make x86 call freeze_secondary_cpus() directly, rename > > > enable_nonboot_cpus() and drop disable_nonboot_cpus(). > > > > All of this in a single patch? > > Well, why not?
I don't mind, was just clarifying. Usually it's requested to split patches :) > > Calling freeze_secondary_cpus() directly causes disable_nonboot_cpus() > to be unused (and so it can be dropped in the same patch) and it also > introduces a name mismatch between freeze_ and enable_, which IMO > needs to be addressed right away (also in the same patch). > > > > 2. Get rid of __freeze_secondary_cpus(). > > > > I guess you're implying to drop the revert too and manually unroll it > > instead. > > IMO the revert is just an extra step with no real value, so why do it? Works for me. Will send v2 ASAP. Thanks -- Qais Yousef
