Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:16:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:16:55 -0500 Received: from modemcable217.53-202-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca ([24.202.53.217]:23830 "EHLO montezuma.mastecende.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:16:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:17:54 -0500 (EST) From: Zwane Mwaikambo X-X-Sender: zwane@montezuma.mastecende.com To: Rusty Russell cc: Linux Kernel , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH][2.5] Remove BUG in cpu_up In-Reply-To: <20021113093843.5C5142C253@lists.samba.org> Message-ID: X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.19-pre5-ac3-zm4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1095 Lines: 26 On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Rusty Russell wrote: > Err, no. If __cpu_up(cpu) succeeded, that means the cpu should bloody > well be online! smp startup looks rather convoluted to me right now, but if i see it correctly, __cpu_up should eventually be doing a wakeup_secondary_via_INIT on vanilla i386 correct? In that case, the processor accepting the IPI doesn't necessarily mean it will have managed to initialise (if at all) itself by the time you do that cpu_online check, the wakeup_secondary_via_INIT will simply tell you wether you succeeded in sending the IPI. There are i386 systems which take considerably long to do that AP initialisation procedure. I still reckon the most you should do there is specify PENDING with the cpu in question sending an ONLINE notification when it finally does all init. Zwane -- function.linuxpower.ca - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/