Re: [PATCH][2.5] Remove BUG in cpu_up
Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:56:53 +1100
In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211130804380.24523-100000@montezuma.mastecende.com>
you write:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > Err, no. If __cpu_up(cpu) succeeded, that means the cpu should bloody
> > well be online!
>
> smp startup looks rather convoluted to me right now, but if i see it
> correctly, __cpu_up should eventually be doing a wakeup_secondary_via_INIT
> on vanilla i386 correct? In that case, the processor accepting the IPI
> doesn't necessarily mean it will have managed to initialise (if at all) itsel
f by
It is bloody convoluted. Hmm, the arch needs to wait before returning
"success" on __cpu_up.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
-
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/