[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B01C3DB.3040802@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:27:55 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] INIT: Limit the number of per cpu calibration bootup
messages
On 11/16/2009 01:24 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Mike Travis <travis@....com> wrote:
>
>> --- linux.orig/init/calibrate.c
>> +++ linux/init/calibrate.c
>> @@ -123,23 +123,26 @@
>> {
>> unsigned long ticks, loopbit;
>> int lps_precision = LPS_PREC;
>> + bool boot_cpu = (smp_processor_id() == 0);
>
> this code is shared by other architectures too - are you sure
> smp_processor_id()==0 is a proper 'I am the boot CPU' assumption
> everywhere?
>
It really shouldn't be for x86 either, although right now we play nasty
renumbering games to accommodate that assumption. It seems like we
really should have a boot_cpu_id() or some such.
-hpa
--
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