On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 02:43:31AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> After you move the cmci_rediscover() call, it is now in a place where we
> >> are
> >> no longer ignoring frozen (i.e. the old placement did the rediscover even
> >> if the
> >> CPU_TASKS_FROZEN bit was set - with the new placement we will skip
> >> rediscovery.
> >>
>
> That's not quite true. The existing code already ignores FROZEN for all the
> cases,
> by ignoring it at the top of the switch-case itself:
No, Tony's right and you got confused:
Before my change, the code did:
if (action == CPU_POST_DEAD) {
/* intentionally ignoring frozen here */
cmci_rediscover();
}
which is only CPU_POST_DEAD *without* the CPU_TASKS_FROZEN bit.
If I move it in the switch-case, cmci_rediscover() *ignores the FROZEN
bit and gets executed for both:
CPU_DEAD:
CPU_DEAD_FROZEN:
because with the FROZEN bit masked out, they're the same.
But we don't want to execute it for the FROZEN bit - look for the other
two tests for CPU_TASKS_FROZEN in mce.c for an example.
So, before we go and change the FROZEN aspect and break things in
strange ways, let's keep the _FROZEN ignore. I certainly don't want to
go down that road and chase why we needed FROZEN or not.
Ok?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/
