Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755785AbYGOK1V (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:27:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754797AbYGOK1K (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:27:10 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:60374 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754799AbYGOK1J (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:27:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:21:30 +0100 From: Russell King To: Andi Kleen Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Alex Chiang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] Introduce cpu_enabled_map and friends Message-ID: <20080715102130.GA22866@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Andi Kleen , Matthew Wilcox , Alex Chiang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org References: <20080715023344.2528.1836.stgit@blender.achiang> <20080715023349.2528.9423.stgit@blender.achiang> <20080715031512.GF14894@parisc-linux.org> <87wsjnxy4w.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87wsjnxy4w.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1405 Lines: 34 On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:03:27PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Matthew Wilcox writes: > > > > I don't understand why we want to know about these CPUs. Surely they > > should be 'possible', but not 'present'? What useful thing can Linux do > > with them? > > He explained it in the intro, near the end (I nearly complained about > this too when I hadn't finished reading it completely :): > > |The big picture implication is that we can allow userspace > |to interact with disabled CPUs. In this particular example, > |we provide a knob that lets a sysadmin schedule any present > |CPU for firmware deconfiguration or enablement. > > The reason sounds pretty exotic, but ok. I don't see why this needs to be cross architecture then - shouldn't the generic kernel only be concerning itself with things that are possible, present and/or online? If you have an interface which allows you to change the machines configuration in a machine specific way, shouldn't that be something for that machine to support and forced upon the entire kernel? -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: -- 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/