[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1IfHZg-0003dp-FA@flower>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 18:04:48 +0200
From: Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz>
To: "Joerg Roedel" <joerg.roedel@....com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i386: mce cleanup part1: functional change
* Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:49:55 +0200
[]
> @@ -33,9 +33,20 @@ void fastcall (*machine_check_vector)(struct pt_regs *, long error_code) = unexp
> /* This has to be run for each processor */
> void mcheck_init(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> {
> + uint32_t mca, mce;
> +
> if (mce_disabled==1)
> return;
>
> + mca = cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCA);
> + mce = cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCE);
> +
> + if (!mca || !mce) {
> + printk(KERN_INFO "CPU%i: No machine check support available\n",
> + smp_processor_id());
> + return;
> + }
> +
cpu_has() returns int,
but would it be better to have something like
if (!mce_disabled &&
!(c->x86_capability & (X86_FEATURE_MCA | X86_FEATURE_MCE)) {
printk(KERN_INFO "CPU%i: No machine check support available\n",
smp_processor_id());
return;
} else
return;
?
____
-
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