Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759136AbZDNSmh (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:42:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753739AbZDNSm0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:42:26 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:53400 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751446AbZDNSm0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:42:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:42:22 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jaswinder Singh Rajput Cc: x86 maintainers , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: cpu_debug.c prepare report if files are inappropriate or CPU is not supported Message-ID: <20090414184222.GC11214@elte.hu> References: <1239725240.2966.4.camel@ht.satnam> <20090414165052.GA2089@elte.hu> <1239728481.2966.21.camel@ht.satnam> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1239728481.2966.21.camel@ht.satnam> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1417 Lines: 44 * Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: > On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 18:50 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: > > > > > + if (!per_cpu(cpu_modelflag, cpu)) > > > > hm, on a second look - the whole cpu_model / cpu_modelflag > > business in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpu_debug.c looks > > over-complicated and broken. You encode it into a > > 'modelflag': > > > > per_cpu(cpu_model, cpu) = ((cpui->x86_vendor << 16) | > > (cpui->x86 << 8) | > > (cpui->x86_model)); > > > > just to decode it later on: > > > > flag = per_cpu(cpu_model, cpu); > > > > switch (flag >> 16) { > > > > That does not make much sense. Please use a proper > > boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor switch() statement, ok? > > > > I am using flags for each cpu, in case there are different CPU in the > sockets: > > struct cpuinfo_x86 *cpui; > cpui = &cpu_data(cpu); > > Do you still think that boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor is better option in > case for multiple CPUs. yes. Assymetric SMP never really happened on x86. 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/