On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:14:02AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:29:26PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > Now that we allow CPU hot unplug on a few platforms, we can end up in a
> > situation where we don't have a CPU with index 0. Or at least we could,
> > if we didn't
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:50:49AM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:29:26 +1000
> David Gibson wrote:
>
> > Now that we allow CPU hot unplug on a few platforms, we can end up in a
> > situation where we don't have a CPU with index 0. Or at least we could,
> > if we didn't h
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:29:26 +1000
David Gibson wrote:
> Now that we allow CPU hot unplug on a few platforms, we can end up in a
> situation where we don't have a CPU with index 0. Or at least we could,
> if we didn't have code to explicitly prohibit unplug of CPU 0.
>
> Longer term we want to
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:29:26PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> Now that we allow CPU hot unplug on a few platforms, we can end up in a
> situation where we don't have a CPU with index 0. Or at least we could,
> if we didn't have code to explicitly prohibit unplug of CPU 0.
>
> Longer term we wan
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:29:26 +1000
David Gibson wrote:
> Now that we allow CPU hot unplug on a few platforms, we can end up in a
> situation where we don't have a CPU with index 0. Or at least we could,
> if we didn't have code to explicitly prohibit unplug of CPU 0.
>
> Longer term we want to
Now that we allow CPU hot unplug on a few platforms, we can end up in a
situation where we don't have a CPU with index 0. Or at least we could,
if we didn't have code to explicitly prohibit unplug of CPU 0.
Longer term we want to allow CPU 0 unplug, this patch is an early step in
allowing this, b
