From: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: fix confusing name of /proc/cpuinfo "ht" flag
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:37:18 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091112183718.GA1925@codemonkey.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091112175908.GB20542@elte.hu>
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 06:59:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > It's an ABI. Keep it stable, please.
>
> That's generally true, but i'm not suggesting that: i'm suggesting to
> _clear_ the HT flag from the cpufeatures if there's only one sibling.
> It's meaningless in that case and as the link quoted by the original
> patch shows many people are confused by that.
>
> I have such a box so i can test it. (but i dont expect any problems)
I agree that it's an ABI change, but any software depending on its current
state has to implement a fallback for the case where 'ht' isn't present anyway
unless there's some program that only runs on ht capable hardware, which
sounds just crazy.
The only potential for breakage that I can see is that code that is tuned
to be run in the HT case will stop running in cases where it shouldn't.
Which sounds like a positive thing to me.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-12 19:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-11 20:34 [PATCH RFC] x86: fix confusing name of /proc/cpuinfo "ht" flag Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-11-11 20:46 ` Chris Friesen
2009-11-12 17:07 ` Alexander Clouter
2009-11-11 21:35 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-11-12 6:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-12 7:08 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-12 8:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-12 15:18 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-12 17:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-12 18:37 ` Dave Jones [this message]
2009-11-12 19:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-13 7:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-13 10:24 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-11-13 7:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091112183718.GA1925@codemonkey.org.uk \
--to=davej@codemonkey.org.uk \
--cc=bzolnier@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.