Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     "kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-coco@lists.linux.dev" <linux-coco@lists.linux.dev>,
        "ashish.kalra@amd.com" <ashish.kalra@amd.com>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "thomas.lendacky@amd.com" <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        "Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@google.com>,
        "bhe@redhat.com" <bhe@redhat.com>,
        "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        "rafael@kernel.org" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 02/13] kernel/cpu: Add support for declaring CPU
 offlining not supported
In-Reply-To: <e3ffb5c47126f03ef998f4ae5df81b9c9bd20da7.camel@intel.com>
References: <20231020151242.1814-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20231020151242.1814-3-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <0a29fef814e51a2aa0030ec9cc97366718859411.camel@intel.com>
 <20231023153142.bes7zxcjc2soihsl@box>
 <e3ffb5c47126f03ef998f4ae5df81b9c9bd20da7.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 28 Oct 2023 16:07:21 +0200
Message-ID: <87cywy263q.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 23 2023 at 22:07, Kai Huang wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 18:31 +0300, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 09:30:59AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
>> > IMHO it's a little bit odd to have two mechanisms in place, even in this middle
>> > state patch.  Is it better to completely replace CC_ATTR_HOTPLUG_DISABLED with
>> > the new cpu_hotplug_offline_disabled in this patch? You can explicitly call
>> > cpu_hotplug_disable_offlining() in tdx_early_init() so no functional change is
>> > done.
>> 
>> I can. But I don't see how it makes a difference.
>
> Personally I think this is better because it is odd to have two mechanisms in
> place even temporarily especially when we can avoid it.  But no hard opinion. 
> Up to you.

It's not at all better because having this clear split makes it simpler
to review and ponder the individual changes.

Thanks,

        tglx