Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751881AbdIMDsJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:48:09 -0400 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:3730 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751381AbdIMDsI (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:48:08 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,385,1500912000"; d="scan'208";a="26035355" Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 01/13] x86/apic: Construct a selector for the interrupt delivery mode To: Baoquan He References: <1503890438-27840-1-git-send-email-douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <1503890438-27840-2-git-send-email-douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170906101728.GM30906@x1> <9f9f7477-01e9-cd16-47a2-e7ce13789e50@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170907052259.GP30906@x1> <172fc486-f894-0daa-7fb8-29a384cb6ae0@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170913023043.GG12824@x1> CC: , , , , , , , , From: Dou Liyang Message-ID: <33509937-ab65-c250-394e-3f17647271a2@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:48:03 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170913023043.GG12824@x1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.226.106] X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: 0416047278D7.AA660 X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2034 Lines: 77 Hi Baoquan, At 09/13/2017 10:30 AM, Baoquan He wrote: > Hi dou, > > On 09/12/17 at 09:20am, Dou Liyang wrote: >> I thought again and again, I would not change this check logic. >> >> Because actually, we have three possibilities: >> >> 1. ACPI on chip >> 2. 82489DX >> 3. no APIC >> >> lapic_is_integrated() is used to check the APIC's type which is >> APIC on chip or 82489DX. It has a prerequisite, we should avoid >> the third possibility(no APIC) first, which is decided by >> boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC) and smp_found_config. So, the original >> logic: >> >> if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC) && !smp_found_config) > > I won't insist that the logic need be changed. From the test result, the > patchset works very well with notsc specified. And the whole patchset > looks not risky. Maybe the patch putting acpi_early_init() earlier can > be posted independently and involve other ARCHes maintainer to review. > Yes, I will send it as an independent patch, and Cc other ARCH maintainers > About the code logic, I think the confusion comes from the unclear > condition check. E.g the above case, you said it's used to check > discrete apic, in fact !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC) could means 3 > cases: > 1) discrete apic > 2) no apic > 3) integrated apic but disabled by bios. Indeed > > See, that's why it's confusing, the condition of judgement is not > adequate. I don't know why the code contributer wanted to check discrete > apic case with it. > > Anyway, after discussion, it's clear to me now. And the code works well. > So it's up to you to change it or not. Except of this place, the whole > patchset looks good. Thank you very much for your review and test. Thanks, dou. > > Thanks > Baoquan > >> >> ...is not just for 82489DX, but also for no APIC. >> >> It looks more correct and understandable than us. >> >> I am sorry my comments were wrong, and misled us. I will modify it >> in my next version. >> >> BTW, How about your test result, is this series OK? >> >> Thanks, >> dou. >> >> > > >