On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:15:00 +0100
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /*
> >>>>> + * We want CPU #2 to be stopped. This should be the case at this
> >>>>> + * point, however, we want to sense if it even exists as well.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> + ret = smp_cpu_stop(2);
> >>>>> + if (ret) {
> >>>>> + report_skip("CPU #2 not found");
> >>>>
> >>>> Since you already queried for the availablity of at least 3 CPUs above, I
> >>>> think you could turn this into a report_fail() instead?
> >>>
> >>> either that or an assert, but again, no strong opinions
> >>>
> >>
> >> Just because there are >= 3 CPUs doesn't imply that CPU #2 is around.
> >
> > Ok, fair point. But if #2 is not around, it means that the test has been run
> > in the wrong way by the user... I wonder what's better in that case - to
> > skip this test or to go out with a bang. Skipping the test has the advantage
> > of looking a little bit more "polite", but it has the disadvantage that it
> > might get lost in automation, e.g. if somebody enabled the test in their CI,
> > but did something wrong in the settings, they might not notice that the test
> > is not run at all...
>
> I sticked to what we have in s390x/smp.c, where we fail if we only have
> a single CPU.
>
> But I don't particularly care (and have to move on doing other stuff),
> so I'll do whatever maintainers want and resend :)
>
a better solution for number != ID is needed (aka: I'll try to fix
it when I have the time), for now it works, so leave it as it is.
