* Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 04/19/2013 01:26 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:46:53AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>
> >>> What you mention here should indeed already be handled by the
> >>> architecture
> >>> hotplug code (for example on x86 the boot CPU cannot be hot-removed).
> >>
> >> Supposedly, some new Intels (I think Ivybridge or so) can actually be
> >> hot-removed.
> >
> > There are WIP patches in existence that remove the limitations on the
> > kernel side,
> > but they are not upstream yet, so currently the constraint exists upstream.
> >
>
> I thought Fenghua Yu's upstream commits were supposed to handle that. Don't
> they?
Hm, I thought there were more patches needed to support actual hardware - the
feature also has various limitations related suspend/resume. Are these
CPU0-hotplug commits all that was needed to support the new hot-pluggable
hardware?
In any case, you are right - it's indeed possible upstream as well.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
