Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:39:10 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: remove wrong setting about CONSTANT_TSC for
	intel cpu
Message-ID: <20080226073910.GA32590@elte.hu>
References: <200802252320.01534.yinghai.lu@sun.com> <20080226072035.GB24820@elte.hu> <86802c440802252324u769f087fw83caa26c1960354e@mail.gmail.com> <20080226073444.GG24820@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080226073444.GG24820@elte.hu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 835
Lines: 26


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> > set_cpu_cap is right
> > ==
> > set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, &c->x86_capability); ===> is wrong
> > should be
> > set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, c->x86_capability);
> > 
> > x86_capability is a array ...
> > 
> > so this could prevent some data corruption.
> 
> ah, right you are! [...]

actually, not: &c->x86_capability and c->x86_capability result in the 
same address (it's an array, not a pointer), so there's no "data 
corruption". If x86_capability were a pointer then you would be right - 
so this is all worth cleaning up.

	Ingo
--
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/