[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1239728481.2966.21.camel@ht.satnam>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:31:21 +0530
From: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: cpu_debug.c prepare report if files are
inappropriate or CPU is not supported
On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 18:50 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > + if (!per_cpu(cpu_modelflag, cpu))
>
> hm, on a second look - the whole cpu_model / cpu_modelflag
> business in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpu_debug.c looks
> over-complicated and broken. You encode it into a
> 'modelflag':
>
> per_cpu(cpu_model, cpu) = ((cpui->x86_vendor << 16) |
> (cpui->x86 << 8) |
> (cpui->x86_model));
>
> just to decode it later on:
>
> flag = per_cpu(cpu_model, cpu);
>
> switch (flag >> 16) {
>
> That does not make much sense. Please use a proper
> boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor switch() statement, ok?
>
I am using flags for each cpu, in case there are different CPU in the
sockets:
struct cpuinfo_x86 *cpui;
cpui = &cpu_data(cpu);
Do you still think that boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor is better option in
case for multiple CPUs.
--
JSR
--
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