On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 27/08/14 10:30, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
>>
>> From: Byungchul Park
>>
>> This patch ensures that the cpu being offlined is not present in the
>> affinity mask.
>>
>
> I agree that this patch fixes the issue reported in [1]
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Sudeep Holla sudeep.ho...@arm.com wrote:
On 27/08/14 10:30, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
From: Byungchul Park byungchul.p...@lge.com
This patch ensures that the cpu being offlined is not present in the
affinity mask.
I agree that this patch fixes the
On 27/08/14 10:30, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
From: Byungchul Park
This patch ensures that the cpu being offlined is not present in the affinity
mask.
I agree that this patch fixes the issue reported in [1] without
disabling forced set affinity mask. However Thomas responded yesterday
From: Byungchul Park
This patch ensures that the cpu being offlined is not present in the affinity
mask.
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park
---
arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c |9 +
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
index
From: Byungchul Park byungchul.p...@lge.com
This patch ensures that the cpu being offlined is not present in the affinity
mask.
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park byungchul.p...@lge.com
---
arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c |9 +
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git
On 27/08/14 10:30, byungchul.p...@lge.com wrote:
From: Byungchul Park byungchul.p...@lge.com
This patch ensures that the cpu being offlined is not present in the affinity
mask.
I agree that this patch fixes the issue reported in [1] without
disabling forced set affinity mask. However
6 matches
Mail list logo