Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200409112742.3581-1-qais.yousef@arm.com> <26038947.HFycnDbHsR@kreacher>
 <20200427102910.b6iysyumiz5pj4sv@e107158-lin>
In-Reply-To: <20200427102910.b6iysyumiz5pj4sv@e107158-lin>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:40:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gesatUBMdt0c30tg34mTeFOon=7ntzQq88=tfJLy8CtA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Revert "cpu/hotplug: Ignore pm_wakeup_pending() for disable_nonboot_cpus()"
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Todd E Brandt <todd.e.brandt@linux.intel.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:29 PM Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/26/20 17:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I would do this the other way around:
> >
> > 1. Make x86 call freeze_secondary_cpus() directly, rename
> >    enable_nonboot_cpus() and drop disable_nonboot_cpus().
>
> All of this in a single patch?

Well, why not?

Calling freeze_secondary_cpus() directly causes disable_nonboot_cpus()
to be unused (and so it can be dropped in the same patch) and it also
introduces a name mismatch between freeze_ and enable_, which IMO
needs to be addressed right away (also in the same patch).

> > 2. Get rid of __freeze_secondary_cpus().
>
> I guess you're implying to drop the revert too and manually unroll it instead.

IMO the revert is just an extra step with no real value, so why do it?

> Could do.

Thanks!