linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: cpu_debug.c prepare report if files are inappropriate or CPU is not supported

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090414184222.GC11214@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:42:22 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>
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


* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org> wrote:

> 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.

yes. Assymetric SMP never really happened on x86.

	Ingo
--
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/