[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r0oj1yz4.ffs@tglx>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2023 01:35:11 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
Peter Keresztes Schmidt <peter@...esztesschmidt.de>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 12/60] x86/of: Fix the APIC address registration
On Thu, Aug 03 2023 at 15:42, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 8/1/23 03:46, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> The device tree APIC parser tries to force enable the local APIC when it is
>> not set in CPUID. apic_force_enable() registers the boot CPU apic on
>> success.
>
> I went looking for how this registration happens. I was expecting to
> see something apic_force_enable() do something similar to
> register_lapic_address().
>
> But the apic_force_enable()=>apic_verify() call chain is pretty shallow
> and I'm not seeing a lot of overlap.
apic_verify() ends up invoking register_lapic_address() on success, no?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists