[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0907120709220.13862@eddie.linux-mips.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 07:31:44 +0100 (BST)
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC -tip] x86,apic - set cpu_has_apic for discrete apic
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Well, I've been using code reading. No real hardware test.
> I just don't have such a hardware.
Then simulate it! Proofreading is not enough -- the APIC code is too
twisted. Be imaginative -- for example you can clear the APIC bit at the
time CPUID flags are saved for later use with cpu_has_apic() and see if
the code behaves as expected. Sprinkle printk()s here and there to see if
variables are set correctly, whether the right code paths are taken, etc.
Tedious? Well, who said kernel debugging was going to be a piece of cake?
Most of the APIC support code I have written has been run-time tested
like this -- one change at a time. Do you think I have an infinite number
of SMP configurations too? All the clean-ups I worked on last year were
tested with one laptop. I didn't even have a serial port for console
dumps back then.
NAK from me until you've tested it, sorry.
Maciej
--
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