Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752152AbcLJDi5 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 9 Dec 2016 22:38:57 -0500
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:41608 "EHLO
        aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751685AbcLJDiz (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 9 Dec 2016 22:38:55 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/smpboot: Make logical package management more robust
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1612081001230.3400@nanos>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1612092305060.3612@nanos>
 <8aa33de4-db18-759b-d2cb-0e25d5ab9d88@oracle.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1612092359550.3612@nanos>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com>,
        "M. Vefa Bicakci" <m.v.b@runbox.com>,
        Alok Kataria <akataria@vmware.com>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Juergen_Gro=c3=9f?= <jgross@suse.com>
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <614d5d69-cfbb-59e8-2d63-ebc00705b82a@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 22:37:14 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1612092359550.3612@nanos>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-IP: userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 894
Lines: 26



On 12/09/2016 06:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 12/09/2016 05:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>
>>> Boris, can you please verify if that makes the
>>> topology_update_package_map() call which you placed into the Xen cpu
>>> starting code obsolete ?
>>
>> Will do. I did test your patch but without removing
>> topology_update_package_map() call. It complained about package IDs
>> being wrong, but that's expected until I fix Xen part.
>
> That should not longer be the case as I changed the approach to that
> management thing.


I didn't notice this email before I sent the earlier message.

Is these anything else besides this patch that I should use? I applied 
it to Linus tree and it didn't apply cleanly (there was some fuzz and 
such) so I wonder whether I am missing something.

-boris