[PATCH RFC v3 05/21] ACPI: Rename ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU to include 'present'

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:12 PM Russell King (Oracle)
<linux at armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 08:57:08PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 09:17:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 9:09 PM Russell King (Oracle)
> > > <linux at armlinux.org.uk> wrote:

[cut]

> > Sorry, no point continuing this.
>
> Let me be clear why I'm exhasperated by this.
>
> I've been giving you a technical argument (Arm64 supporting ACPI
> hotplug CPU, but ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU=n) for many many emails. You
> seemed to misunderstand that, expecting ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU to become
> Y later in the series.
>
> When that became clear that it wasn't, you've changed tack. It then
> became about whether two functions get called or not.
>
> When I pointed out that they are still going to be called, oh no,
> it's not about whether those two functions will be called but
> how they get called.

As I've said already in this thread, it is all about what "ACPI-based
CPU hotplug" means to each of us.

I know what it means to me: Running the code that is compiled when
ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU is set via the processor scan handler.

I'm not entirely sure what it means to you.

You are saying that the config option name needs to be changed,
because it is going to stay N for ARM64 and it will support
"ACPI-based CPU hotplug" and I'm not sure what exactly you mean by
this.

To me, this just means that ARM64 is not going to use the processor
scan handler in the way it is used on x86.

> Essentially, what this comes down to is that _you_ have no technical
> argument against the change, just _you_ don't personally want it
> and it doesn't matter what justification I come up with, you're
> always going to tell me something different.

Sorry, but I'm just not convinced by your justification.

> So why not state that you personally don't want it in the first
> place? Why this game of cat and mouse and the constantly changing
> arguments. I guess it's to waste developers time.
>
> Well, I'm calling you out for this, because I'm that pissed off
> at the amount of time you're causing to be wasted.

And I don't have to suffer this kind of abuse.  Sorry.