Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:47:42 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: remove wrong setting about CONSTANT_TSC for
	intel cpu
Message-ID: <20080226094742.GM9857@elte.hu>
References: <200802252320.01534.yinghai.lu@sun.com> <20080226072035.GB24820@elte.hu> <86802c440802252324u769f087fw83caa26c1960354e@mail.gmail.com> <47C3C0D1.1020304@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <47C3C0D1.1020304@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 815
Lines: 27


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>  which is the same. set_cpu_cap() is indeed the cleaner form to do this
>>>  so your patch is correct as a cleanup.
>> 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 ...
>
> For an array, the & is optional and has no effect.
>
> So they mean the same thing.

yeah. It's unnecessary entropy nevertheless and i've cleaned it all up 
in x86.git.

	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/