[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F43948D.8070709@numascale-asia.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:56:45 +0000
From: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale-asia.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove wrong error message in x86_default_fixup_cpu_id
On 21/02/2012 11:20, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:05:21AM +0000, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>> The check and fixup wasn't needed in the Intel path thus far, so
>> wasn't added.
>>
>> We could specialise the 'if (c->phys_proc_id != node)' test to check
>> for x86_cpuinit.fixup_cpu_id being NULL and drop the default
>> override, if that is preferred?
> Before that, why do you need that check in the AMD path at all? Please
> give a more detailed explanation as to why is it needed on the AMD path
> at all.
Since Numascale's NumaConnect bridges multiple separate HyperTransport
fabrics across multiple servers together, the HT IDs written in the
hardware thus don't match the information in the SRAT table constructed
in the bootloader, thus we need to set this to the logical value [1,
'fixup_cpu_id'].
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/5/292
--
Daniel J Blueman
Principal Software Engineer, Numascale Asia
--
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