Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:24:00 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hpe.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mcgrof@suse.com,
        jgross@suse.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mtrr: Refactor PAT initialization code
Message-ID: <20160311092400.GB4347@pd.tnic>
References: <1457671546-13486-1-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hpe.com>
 <1457671546-13486-3-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hpe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1457671546-13486-3-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hpe.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 790
Lines: 27

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:45:46PM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> MTRR manages PAT initialization as it implements a rendezvous
> handler that initializes PAT as part of MTRR initialization.
> 
> When CPU does not support MTRR, ex. qemu32 virtual CPU, MTRR
> simply skips PAT init, which causes PAT left enabled without
> initialization.  Also, get_mtrr_state() calls pat_init() on
> BSP even if MTRR is disabled by its MSR.  This causes pat_init()
> be called on BSP only.

So I don't understand what all this hoopla is all about: why can't you
simply call pat_disable() in mtrr_ap_init() and be done with it?

void mtrr_ap_init(void)
{
        if (!mtrr_enabled()) {
		pat_disable();
                return;
	}

?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.