On 03/18/2014 10:52 PM, dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx>
I don't mean to nitpick, but generally its easier to deal with
patchsets if you post the subsequent versions in fresh email threads.
Otherwise it can get a bit muddled along with too many other email
discussions in the same thread :-(
Changed the calling of the ->stop() callback to be conditional on the
core being the last core controlled by a given policy.
Wait, why? I'm sorry if I am not catching up with the discussions on
this issue quickly enough, but I don't see why we should make it
conditional on _that_. I thought we agreed that we should make it
conditional in the sense that ->stop() should be invoked only for
->setpolicy drivers, right?
The way I look at it, ->stop() gives you a chance to stop managing
the CPU going offline. As in "stop this CPU". ->exit() is your chance
to cleanup the policy, since all its users have gone offline (or this
is the last CPU belonging to that policy which is going offline).
With this in mind, we should invoke ->stop() every time we take a
CPU offline, and invoke ->exit() only when the last CPU in the policy
What am I missing?
Srivatsa S. Bhat