On 12/23/2013 09:51 PM, Chen, Gong wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 09:39:12AM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c >> index 7d40698..aed7acc 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c >> @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ int check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disable(void) >> desc = irq_to_desc(irq); >> data = irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc); >> affinity = data->affinity; >> - if (irq_has_action(irq) || !irqd_is_per_cpu(data) || >> + if (irq_has_action(irq) && !irqd_is_per_cpu(data) && >> !cpumask_subset(affinity, cpu_online_mask)) >> this_count++; > Hi, Prarit > > I noticed that you don't mention another question I asked in last mail. > > "It looks like cpu_online_mask will be updated until cpu_disable_common > is called, but your check_vectors is called before that." Oh, I'm sorry ... Yes, check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disable() is called before we remove the CPU from the maps. If there is an error then we have to do much less clean up of the code. I explicitly take into account the cpu that is being downed into the check vectors code. > > native_cpu_disable > cpu_disable_common > remove_cpu_from_maps > /* > * until here, cpu_online_mask/cpu_online_bits > * is cleared > */ > set_cpu_online(cpu, false); > > Something I missed? No -- are you pointing out a bug? P. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html