On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:51:07PM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 02:50:23PM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote: > >> diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/process.c b/arch/mips/kernel/process.c > >> index e9a5fd7..69b17a9 100644 > >> --- a/arch/mips/kernel/process.c > >> +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/process.c > >> @@ -72,9 +72,7 @@ void __noreturn cpu_idle(void) > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? } > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? } > >> ?#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > >> - ? ? ? ? ? ? if (!cpu_online(cpu) && !cpu_isset(cpu, cpu_callin_map) && > >> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING || > >> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING)) > >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? if (!cpu_online(cpu) && !cpu_isset(cpu, cpu_callin_map)) > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? play_dead(); > > > > I think patch like this should be separated from BSP code. > > > > BTW, what's the story behind this change? > When poweroff, disable_nonboot_cpus() is called, and if HOTPLUG_CPU is > configured, disable_nonboot_cpus() is not an empty function but try to > offline nonboot cores. If without this change, poweroff fails. Yeah. It's an issue. I think Cavium is also affected (Cc'ing David). So mind making this a single patch? We should also send it to -stable IMHO. Thanks, Yong
