On 15 July 2014 12:28, Srivatsa S. Bhat [off-list ref] wrote:

Wait, allowing an offline CPU to be the policy->cpu (i.e., the CPU which is
considered as the master of the policy/group) is just absurd.

Yeah, that was as Absurd as I am :)

The goal of this patchset should be to just de-couple the sysfs files/ownership
from the policy->cpu to an extent where it doesn't matter who owns those
files, and probably make it easier to do CPU hotplug without having to
destroy and recreate the files on every hotplug operation.

I went to that Absurd idea because we thought we can skip playing with
the sysfs nodes on suspend/hotplug.

And if policy->cpu keeps changing with hotplug, we *may* have to keep
sysfs stuff moving as well. One way to avoid that is by using something
like: policy->sysfs_cpu, but wasn't sure if that's the right path to follow.

Lets see what Saravana's new patchset has for us :)