Hi James,
From: James Morse james.morse@arm.com Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2023 2:31 PM To: Salil Mehta salil.mehta@huawei.com; Russell King linux@armlinux.org.uk
Hi Salil,
On 30/10/2023 10:45, Salil Mehta wrote:
From: Russell King linux@armlinux.org.uk Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 8:26 PM To: Salil Mehta salil.mehta@huawei.com
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 03:02:25PM +0000, Salil Mehta wrote:
From: Russell King linux@armlinux.org.uk Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 2:47 PM To: Salil Mehta salil.mehta@huawei.com
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 04:56:20PM +0000, Salil Mehta wrote:
> From: Russell King linux@armlinux.org.uk > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 5:48 PM > To: Salil Mehta salil.mehta@huawei.com > Cc: James Morse james.morse@arm.com; linaro-open-discussions@op- > lists.linaro.org; Joyce Qi joyce.qi@linaro.org; Lorenzo Pieralisi > lorenzo.pieralisi@linaro.org; Jonathan Cameron > jonathan.cameron@huawei.com; Shameerali Kolothum Thodi > shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com; karl.heubaum@oracle.com; > darren@os.amperecomputing.com; ilkka@os.amperecomputing.com; > miguel.luis@oracle.com; vishnu@os.amperecomputing.com; Linuxarm > linuxarm@huawei.com; salil.mehta@opnsrc.net > Subject: Re: [Request] Regarding non-RFC patch-set of Virtual CPU Hotplug > kernel support > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 04:40:59PM +0000, Salil Mehta wrote: >>> I'm afraid it isn't going to happen - going through the review comments >>> there's some ambiguities there (at least to me) that I can't solve >>> without input from the reviewers. I haven't even managed to get half >>> way through the patches yet. >>
[...]
That is quite damning. Rafael said, "very hard to convince me that this change is a good idea"... so using the enabled bit to control whether a CPU is enumerated doesn't sound like a patch that will be accepted into mainline even if all the others are.
Do these responses from Rafael sound to you like this is a patch series that is going to get imminently merged, or does it sound like the patch series needs some major rework and potentially needing a different approach?
Sure, they don't. Your cover letter said something similar :|
Excerpt from RFC V3 cover-letter: " I'm posting this as RFC v3 because there's still some unaddressed comments and it's clearly not ready for merging. Even if it was ready to be merged, it is too late in this development cycle to be taking this change in, so there would be little point posting it non-RFC. Also James stated that he's waiting for confirmation from the Kubernetes/Kata folk - I have no idea what the status is there."
@James, can you please update about what you are waiting for?
(the @ is for twitter right?)
Some confirmation from the people that work on those projects that this works for them. Especially around the way CPUs are visible as present (because they are), and this is visible if you stick your nose in the kernel's sysfs business.
I thought you were confident enough last year that nobody is using the 'sysfs' for viewing present/not-present from user-space in the deployments? If not then have we chased enough to get hold of the right people to review our approach?
I've not had anything in private. I've not had time to catch up with this RFC until the merge window. (and next week is some internal conference where anything could happen - and the week after is plumbers)
I am sure you have been busy with MPAM along with Jonathan. A simple reply with the list of people to chase would have helped but anyways let us salvage whatever we have now. Do you need my help in this?
Thanks Salil.