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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:32:35 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> CC: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] x86, xsave: some code cleanups and reworks On 07/20/2010 01:17 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > well, not true, this id is being set in setup_per_cpu_areas() > note the snippet > > if (cpu == boot_cpu_id) > switch_to_new_gdt(cpu); > > but cycle of assignment is done over all possible cpus so > smp_processor_id will be = 0 for BP but definitely it's > confusing and better to check for BP via explicit cpu == boot_cpu_id > I think. Though I might be missing something. > I think the style (!smp_processor_id()) is already in use in other places, but we should be consistent in style; if you want to introduce a new style I certainly agree that (is_boot_cpu()) is pretty clear but it should be introduced universally. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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