| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 19:47:39 -0500 From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix dynticks for voyager On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 17:26 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Matt Mackall wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:38:51AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > >> As usual voyager tripped over an explicit boot CPU is zero assumption in > >> the dynticks code. This is the fix I have queued in the voyager tree. > >> > > > > Can we flush out all these assumptions by adding a constant offset > > somewhere? Or reversing the ordering? It might be useful to voyager, but unless the offset were random, people would simply hardwire it. > My understanding is that the boot CPU is random depending on who wins > the "I get to boot" bunfight. Not quite. On apic systems, the boot CPU can be an arbitrary physical id but is conventionally logical id 0. On voyager, the CPU id actually maps to a fixed location, so there's no sense in having a logical id. The booting CPU on voyager is simply the lowest numbered CPU that comes up through the SUS boot. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists