On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 05:34:00PM +0900, Keiichiro Tokunaga wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:41:07 -0700 Keshavamurthy Anil S wrote: > > --- > > Name:topology.patch > > Status:Tested on 2.6.9-rc2 > > Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com> > > Depends: > > Version: applies on 2.6.9-rc2 > > Description: > > Extends support for dynamic registration and unregistration of the cpu, > > by implementing and exporting arch_register_cpu()/arch_unregister_cpu(). > > Also combines multiple implementation of topology_init() functions to > > single topology_init() in case of ia64 architecture. > > --- > > > +void arch_unregister_cpu(int num) > > +{ > > + struct node *parent = NULL; > > + > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA > > + int node = cpu_to_node(num); > > + if (node_online(node)) > > + parent = &sysfs_nodes[node]; > > +#endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */ > > + > > + return unregister_cpu(&sysfs_cpus[num].cpu, parent); > > +} > > I don't think that the check 'if (node_online(node))' is necessary > because sysfs_nodes[node] is there no matter if the node is online > or offline. sysfs_nodes[] is cleared only when unregister_node() > is called and it would be always called after unregister_cpu(). Yes, I agree with you. I will remove the check, or simply apply your patch:) thanks, Anil - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Wed Sep 22 13:11:10 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:30 EST