linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: fix section mismatch in LAPIC initialization

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4D22159C.6080402@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:29:48 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
CC:	mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix section mismatch in LAPIC initialization

On 01/03/2011 07:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Doing things conditionally upon spm_processor_id() being zero is
> generally a bad idea, as this means CPU 0 cannot be offlined and
> brought back online later again. While there may be other places where
> this is done, I think adding more of those should be avoided so that
> some day SMP really becomes "symmetrical".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>

The description doesn't really match the subject line...

	-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/