Re: [PATCH 00/10] x86, xsave: some code cleanups and reworks

[Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>]

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