[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4972BE69.2000609@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:30:17 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/17] x86-64: Remove pda_init()
Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Brian Gerst wrote:
>>> -void __cpuinit pda_init(int cpu)
>>> -{
>>> - struct x8664_pda *pda = cpu_pda(cpu);
>>> -
>>> - /* Setup up data that may be needed in __get_free_pages early */
>>> - loadsegment(fs, 0);
>>> - loadsegment(gs, 0);
>>> -
>>> - load_pda_offset(cpu);
>>> -}
>> Simply removing these should work fine as they're also initialized in
>> other places earlier but I think they still need to be in cpu_init()
>> because...
>>
>> /*
>> * cpu_init() initializes state that is per-CPU. Some data is already
>> * initialized (naturally) in the bootstrap process, such as the GDT
>> * and IDT. We reload them nevertheless, this function acts as a
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> * 'CPU state barrier', nothing should get across.
>> * A lot of state is already set up in PDA init for 64 bit
>> */
>
> That comment seems like overkill. It may have been relevant in an
> earlier time, but I don't think we need to be so strict now,
> especially for things we know are set properly in head_xx.S.
That may be so, but wouldn't such change deserve a separate patch with
accompanying update in the comment? It's not simple move from A to B
change.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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