[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A35AB6C.7090605@goop.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:01:16 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's
no local APIC
On 06/12/09 13:11, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> just for the record -- this removement has a side effect.
> Imagine I've passed "disableapic" so I expect as many as
> possible apic-related code would not pass thru execution.
> Now we would have (say for IBM Summit)
>
> acpi_parse_madt
> default_acpi_madt_oem_check
> summit_acpi_madt_oem_check
> mark_tsc_unstable
> setup_summit
>
> Dunno if it harmless or no but it changes kernel behaviour.
> cpu_has_apic cleared if disableapic option (which is early
> param) passed to kernel.
>
> Just a note. Didn't walk thru all ways.
>
Yeah, that occured to me over the weekend. Some of those cpu_has_apic
tests should probably be replaced with explicit tests to see if noapic
was specified. I'll go over it with that in mind.
Thanks,
J
--
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