On 06/27/2013 04:18 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:43:02AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>> > The architectures which may support 'hotpluggable', can scan all cpus
>> > during subsys_initcall(). the upper caller will skip the return value.
>> >
>> > It also can initialize hotpluggable flag of all cpus in time, no matter
>> > whether any cpus fail or not.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > arch/s390/kernel/smp.c | 5 +++--
>> > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/smp.c b/arch/s390/kernel/smp.c
>> > index d386c4e..75a118f 100644
>> > --- a/arch/s390/kernel/smp.c
>> > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/smp.c
>> > @@ -1064,8 +1064,9 @@ static int __init s390_smp_init(void)
>> > #endif
>> > for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
>> > rc = smp_add_present_cpu(cpu);
>> > - if (rc)
>> > - return rc;
>> > + if (unlikely(rc))
>> > + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: add cpu %d failed (%d)\n",
>> > + __func__, cpu, rc);
> I have no idea how the patch description is supposed to correlate with
> your patch.
Pardon, excuse me, my English is not quite well.
> However your patch doesn't make sense anyway.
At least it will continue to try to "add present cpu" as much as possible.
And also make sure of all 'hotpluggable' set.
> We have initcall_debug for .. initcall debugging, which your patch would
> break in addition, since this function would now return 0 instead of the
> return code.
I have searched all another architectures, most of them are only return
0 in subsys_initcall().
Do you means we do not like them ?
Thanks
--
Chen Gang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
