On 10/01, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:07:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 10/01, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:45:08PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > > I tend to agree with Srivatsa... Without a strong reason it would be better > > > > to preserve the current logic: "some time after" should not be after the > > > > next CPU_DOWN/UP*. But I won't argue too much. > > > > > > Nah, I think breaking it is the right thing :-) > > > > I don't really agree but I won't argue ;) > > The authors of arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c would seem to be the > guys who would need to complain, given that they seem to have the only > use in 3.11. mce_cpu_callback() is fine, it ignores POST_DEAD if CPU_TASKS_FROZEN. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>