[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100721165211.GD8009@lenovo>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:52:11 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.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 Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 09:32:35AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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
>
yes, also I bet there will be places with patterns like
cpu = smp_processor_id();
if (!cpu)
or
if (cpu == 0)
so every single smp_processor_id and "raw" version as well should be
checked. I'll take a look as only get ability. If Robert (or anyone)
will like to beat me on this -- I would be only glad ;)
-- Cyrill
--
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