On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 7:49 PM Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:21:41 +0000 > Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Jonathan, > > > > > On 26 Apr 2024, at 16:05, Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 26 Apr 2024, at 13:51, Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> Separate code paths, combined with a flag set in acpi_processor.c to > > >> indicate a struct acpi_processor was for a hotplugged CPU ensured that > > >> per CPU data was only set up the first time that a CPU was initialized. > > >> This appears to be unnecessary as the paths can be combined by letting > > >> the online logic also handle any CPUs online at the time of driver load. > > >> > > >> Motivation for this change, beyond simplification, is that ARM64 > > >> virtual CPU HP uses the same code paths for hotplug and cold path in > > >> acpi_processor.c so had no easy way to set the flag for hotplug only. > > >> Removing this necessity will enable ARM64 vCPU HP to reuse the existing > > >> code paths. > > >> > > >> Leave noisy pr_info() in place but update it to not state the CPU > > >> was hotplugged. > > > > On a second thought, do we want to keep it? Can't we just assume that no > > news is good news while keeping the warn right after __acpi_processor_start ? > > Good question - my inclination was to keep this in place for now as removing > it would remove a source of information people may expect on x86 hotplug. > > Then maybe propose dropping it as overly noisy kernel as a follow up > patch after this series is merged. Felt like a potential rat hole I didn't > want to go down if I could avoid it. > > If any x86 experts want to shout that no one cares then I'll happily drop > the print. You can do that I think and see if anyone complains. I'm not really expecting this to happen, though.
