[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100815083057.GB5629@lenovo>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:30:57 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Don't write io_apic ID if it is not changed
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:24:46PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
...
> As far as I see, this was done by a purpose in former code. Consider the
> situation when mp_ioapics[apic_id].apicid >= get_physical_broadcast().
> By code flow (io_apic.c:2099) this set
>
> if (mp_ioapics[apic_id].apicid >= get_physical_broadcast()) {
> printk(KERN_ERR "BIOS bug, IO-APIC#%d ID is %d in the MPC table!...\n",
> apic_id, mp_ioapics[apic_id].apicid);
> printk(KERN_ERR "... fixing up to %d. (tell your hw vendor)\n",
> reg_00.bits.ID);
> ---> mp_ioapics[apic_id].apicid = reg_00.bits.ID;
> }
>
> So with your patch we always hit "continue" without real changing of ID which
> is not correct.
>
> But perhaps I miss something?
>
> -- Cyrill
False alarm Yinghai, of course there is no need to write same value back,
sorry for noise.
-- 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