[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B01D870.3090103@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:55:44 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, 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 02:51 PM, Mike Travis wrote:
>
> There's also some confusion on whether the boot_cpu_id is the APIC id (ia64)
> or the cpu_index (x86) or some other number (others). (cpu_index 0 by
> definition will always be the boot cpu.)
>
This is part of what I said... the whole cpu_index thing is a rather
awkward extra layer of indirection.
But regardless... we have a panarchitectural notion of a cpu ID, and
that is what boot_cpu_id() [or whatever we call it] should refer to. On
some architectures that will be constant.
-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