Re: [PATCH v2 03/14] arm: arm64: Don't use disable_nonboot_cpus()

[Russell King - ARM Linux admin]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 04:58:09PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 01/21/20 16:53, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 04:50:31PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > On 11/25/19 11:27, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > > disable_nonboot_cpus() is not safe to use when doing machine_down(),
> > > > because it relies on freeze_secondary_cpus() which in return is
> > > > a suspend/resume related freeze and could abort if the logic detects any
> > > > pending activities that can prevent finishing the offlining process.
> > > > 
> > > > Beside disable_nonboot_cpus() is dependent on CONFIG_PM_SLEEP_SMP which
> > > > is an othogonal config to rely on to ensure this function works
> > > > correctly.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@xxxxxxx>
> > > > CC: Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > CC: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
> > > > CC: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > CC: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > CC: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > ---
> > > 
> > > Ping :)
> > > 
> > > I'm missing ACKs on this patch and patch 4 for arm64. Hopefully none should be
> > > controversial.
> > 
> > ARM and ARM64 are maintained separately, so you can't submit a single
> > patch covering both.  Sorry.
> 
> Sure I'd be happy to split.
> 
> It was just a single line change and I expected Thomas to pick the whole series
> up, so I didn't think there'd be an issue in combining them up since they're
> identical.
> 
> Do I take it you have no objection to the code change itself and just would
> like to see this split up?

I do have an objection to the new function you're introducing in patch
1.  See my reply to that.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up