On 07/16/2014 11:14 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 15 July 2014 12:28, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Wait, allowing an offline CPU to be the policy->cpu (i.e., the CPU which is >> considered as the master of the policy/group) is just absurd. > > Yeah, that was as Absurd as I am :) > I have had my own share of silly ideas over the years; so don't worry, we are all in the same boat ;-) >> The goal of this patchset should be to just de-couple the sysfs files/ownership >> from the policy->cpu to an extent where it doesn't matter who owns those >> files, and probably make it easier to do CPU hotplug without having to >> destroy and recreate the files on every hotplug operation. > > I went to that Absurd idea because we thought we can skip playing with > the sysfs nodes on suspend/hotplug. > > And if policy->cpu keeps changing with hotplug, we *may* have to keep > sysfs stuff moving as well. One way to avoid that is by using something > like: policy->sysfs_cpu, but wasn't sure if that's the right path to follow. > Hmm, I understand.. Even I don't have any suggestions as of now, since I haven't spent enough time thinking of alternatives yet. > Lets see what Saravana's new patchset has for us :) > Yep :-) Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
