On Mon, Oct 23 2023 at 22:07, Kai Huang wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 18:31 +0300, kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
