[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d56da35a-e30b-b118-886f-add6f500d85e@citrix.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 16:35:55 +0100
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@....com>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 25/53] x86/acpi: Use new APIC registration functions
On 07/08/2023 4:27 pm, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 03:53:12PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> +static __init void acpi_register_lapic(u32 apic_id, u32 acpi_id, bool present)
> just stating on the record what I said during review last week: whoever
> caused these APIC and ACPI names to go together was a sadist.
My feedback was surprisingly similar.
I still look at that and think it ought to fail to compile.
~Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists