Re: [PATCH 1/2] topology: Check for missing CPU devices
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Ben Hutchings <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I mean to say that we could have no CPU devices after the *second*
> patch. So the first patch is an extra defence against that. (Though we
> could just as well panic if register_cpu() fails at boot time.)
I think I'd rather just panic - if you have allocation issues during
early boot, the machine is hosed anyway - and then get rid of the
Willing to send out a new patch along those lines (and with UML added)?