Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755854AbXJKRbN (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:31:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754425AbXJKRa7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:30:59 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:41341 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754383AbXJKRa6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:30:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:30:34 -0400 From: Dave Jones To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Christoph Egger , Joerg Roedel , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: mce init optimization and signedness fixup Message-ID: <20071011173034.GB21339@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Thomas Gleixner , Christoph Egger , Joerg Roedel , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <11921050742274-git-send-email-joerg.roedel@amd.com> <200710111601.02630.Christoph.Egger@amd.com> <200710111703.35129.Christoph.Egger@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1723 Lines: 44 On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:50:12PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Christoph Egger wrote: > > On Thursday 11 October 2007 16:55:36 Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > + > > > > > > + if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCA) || !cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCE)) { > > > > > > + printk(KERN_INFO "CPU%i: No machine check support available\n", > > > > > > + smp_processor_id()); > > > > > > + return; > > > > > > > > > > This breaks winchip MCE support. > > > > > > > > First, what is a winchip? It sounds to be something windows specific. ;) > > > > Second, can you explain in which way MCE support gets broken, please? > > > > > > First, winchip is the code name of Centaurs early x86 cpus. > > > > > > Second, those beasts do not have FEATURE_MCA, but they have FEATURE_MCE, > > > so they support the fatal exception, but not the non fatal check. > > > > So when I change the above code snippet to: > > > > + if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCE)) { > > + printk(KERN_INFO "CPU%i: No machine check support available\n", > > + smp_processor_id()); > > + return; > > > > Would this make the whole patch acceptable then? > > Yeah, but then we can clean up the extra checks for _MCE in the various > cpu type init functions as well. I question the value of adding the printk. It's not a failure, there's nothing the user can do about it, and it adds no real value, just more noise to the dmesg. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/