[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1fwyrgmsf.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:49:04 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tvrtko.ursulin@...hos.com,
hilld@...arystorm.net, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...ux.intel.com,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86, apic: Map the local apic when parsing the MP table.
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> writes:
> On 08/06/2010 06:21 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 08/06/2010 06:08 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure the above is decipherable. Please provide an incremental
>>>> patch with a more detailed description.
>>>
>>> YH was saying I overoptimized, and it looks like he is right,
>>> although there are only one or two machines in existence that
>>> are likely to be affected.
>>>
>>> Untested patch to remove the cleverness below. It it boots all
>>> is well.
>>>
>>
>> This makes sense to me. Yinghai, do you have a system that is actually
>> affected, and if so, could you test this patch?
>
> no, i don't have those kind of system.
I don't know if anyone does. It looks like sfi aka moorestown
and visws are what are affected.
That is why I made a patch that any boot where we exercise a local
apic will exercise.
Arguably if it is best to just remove that hunk from my patch, so
we have something that is safe to backport to 2.6.35.1.
> found it when i was preparing more smp_register_lapic_address patcheset.
>
> I suggest we still keep !acpi_lapic checking, that should always right.
Ultimately we want to remove the code duplication entirely.
Eric
--
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