[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F62E195.6020405@numascale.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:45:41 +0100
From: Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale-asia.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Added separate apic_id_valid() functions for selected
apic drivers
On 3/16/2012 01:13, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 01:07 +0100, Steffen Persvold wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/srat.c b/arch/x86/mm/srat.c
>> index 1c1c4f4..7efd0c6 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/srat.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/srat.c
>> @@ -69,12 +69,6 @@ acpi_numa_x2apic_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_x2apic_cpu_affinity *pa)
>> if ((pa->flags& ACPI_SRAT_CPU_ENABLED) == 0)
>> return;
>> pxm = pa->proximity_domain;
>> - apic_id = pa->apic_id;
>> - if (!cpu_has_x2apic&& (apic_id>= 0xff)) {
>
> not sure why you removed this. Shouldn't this be replaced with
> apic->apic_id_valid() check?
>
Well I removed it in both my patches because Yinghai stated :
>>>the checking in SRAT could be removed.
>>>
>>>Yinghai
a couple of emails ago. I could of course use apic->apic_id_valid() here
too to avoid parsing the PXM.
Cheers,
--
Steffen Persvold, Chief Architect NumaChip
Numascale AS - www.numascale.com
Tel: +47 92 49 25 54 Skype: spersvold
--
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