Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761230Ab0GURha (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:37:30 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:39387 "EHLO mail-ew0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756540Ab0GURh2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:37:28 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=rnQQ7IF5IguevLqJhMNLE+0OEqzvIkE8mtFGejddfZky+nMMBZAxL407kdoPVlhGT6 vCifm8hU4fczBt5XOjUiICesFeLl0fwA/tnbF3nNMB1srHTwQDUq6Jw7pelmpXzmA80O 3z7wJcN9PVkDddsHLfM6AdnQHn1VuXQnE4h0I= Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:37:23 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Robert Richter Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Suresh Siddha , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] x86, xsave: some code cleanups and reworks Message-ID: <20100721173723.GG8009@lenovo> References: <20100720192717.GC6227@lenovo> <20100720194606.GO26154@erda.amd.com> <20100720200729.GD6227@lenovo> <20100720201740.GE6227@lenovo> <4C472123.1090900@zytor.com> <20100721165211.GD8009@lenovo> <20100721170124.GE8009@lenovo> <4C472A5C.50004@zytor.com> <20100721171718.GF8009@lenovo> <20100721172428.GS26154@erda.amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100721172428.GS26154@erda.amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1983 Lines: 63 On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 07:24:28PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > On 21.07.10 13:17:18, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:11:56AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > On 07/21/2010 10:01 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > > > > > > > Peter, also I think such tuning must be done at merge window time only, > > > > just to not break other's patch queues. > > > > > > > > > > Realistically it should be done right after the merge window for the > > > *next* merge window. > > > > > > -hpa > > > > > > > ok, which means Robert should use old conventional test at the moment > > instead of introducing is_boot_cpu I suppose. > > Yes, I am just using: > > if (!smp_processor_id()) > ... ok, I see > > Cyrill, if you like, I will leave it up to you to introduce the > is_boot_cpu() macro. ok Robert, I may handle it, notes below > > I still have patch 7/7 in my new posting in that removes the > boot_cpu_id. If your patch comes soon this will be obsolete as all > places will have the macro then. > I guess I can make it in a hour or so (since need to check all possible places) but it might break other's queue I fear. That is why hpa noted such things should go after merge window. So I don't know Robert what would be preferred. If Peter pick up your patch for now -- I may just keep it somewhere localy to not loose the traces of boot_cpu_id and use this patch as helper. I just fear I can forget about this promise to introduce is_boot_cpu helper later ;) Another option could be -- introduce it now and send to trivial@ ML so it'll be picked up there and pushed upstream after merge window. > Thanks, > > -Robert > > -- > Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. > Operating System Research Center > -- Cyrill -- 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/