On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:03:27PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
quoted text
> Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> writes:
> >
> > I don't understand why we want to know about these CPUs.  Surely they
> > should be 'possible', but not 'present'?  What useful thing can Linux do
> > with them?
> 
> He explained it in the intro, near the end (I nearly complained about
> this too when I hadn't finished reading it completely :):
> 
> |The big picture implication is that we can allow userspace
> |to interact with disabled CPUs. In this particular example,
> |we provide a knob that lets a sysadmin schedule any present
> |CPU for firmware deconfiguration or enablement.
> 
> The reason sounds pretty exotic, but ok.

I don't see why this needs to be cross architecture then - shouldn't
the generic kernel only be concerning itself with things that are
possible, present and/or online?

If you have an interface which allows you to change the machines
configuration in a machine specific way, shouldn't that be something
for that machine to support and forced upon the entire kernel?

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/