From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@googlemail.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@vger
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] x86 msrs: alloc/free for CONFIG_SMP=n
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:41:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B296209.2010902@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091216215808.GB27228@liondog.tnic>
On 12/16/2009 01:58 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
>>
>> --- linux-next-20091216.orig/arch/x86/lib/Makefile
>> +++ linux-next-20091216/arch/x86/lib/Makefile
>> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ $(obj)/inat.o: $(obj)/inat-tables.c
>>
>> clean-files := inat-tables.c
>>
>> -obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) := msr.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_X86_MSR) := msr.o
>
> however, CONFIG_X86_MSR is the x86 MSR access module and the <lib/msr.c>
> is the library of MSR accessing functions which is always in. So this
> should be unconditional as in my version or Peter might have a better
> idea...?
>
Both are wrong.
CONFIG_X86_MSR has nothing at all to do with this and is a complete red
herring. Involving CONFIG_X86_MSR is just totally bogus.
Including msr.o unconditionally is also wrong, but for a more subtle
reason: msr.c is written to contain functions that apply to SMP only;
with UP replacement stubs written as inlines in
arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h.
Putting most of the file inside a big #ifdef of course works, but is a
pretty bad case of beating it with the ugly stick. My preference would
be to move the SMP-specific functions to a new file, call it msr-smp.c,
and then leave only the functions that should be included
unconditionally in msr.c (I believe it is cleaner to do it that way than
the opposite.)
-hpa
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@googlemail.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] x86 msrs: alloc/free for CONFIG_SMP=n
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:41:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B296209.2010902@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091216215808.GB27228@liondog.tnic>
On 12/16/2009 01:58 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
>>
>> --- linux-next-20091216.orig/arch/x86/lib/Makefile
>> +++ linux-next-20091216/arch/x86/lib/Makefile
>> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ $(obj)/inat.o: $(obj)/inat-tables.c
>>
>> clean-files := inat-tables.c
>>
>> -obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) := msr.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_X86_MSR) := msr.o
>
> however, CONFIG_X86_MSR is the x86 MSR access module and the <lib/msr.c>
> is the library of MSR accessing functions which is always in. So this
> should be unconditional as in my version or Peter might have a better
> idea...?
>
Both are wrong.
CONFIG_X86_MSR has nothing at all to do with this and is a complete red
herring. Involving CONFIG_X86_MSR is just totally bogus.
Including msr.o unconditionally is also wrong, but for a more subtle
reason: msr.c is written to contain functions that apply to SMP only;
with UP replacement stubs written as inlines in
arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h.
Putting most of the file inside a big #ifdef of course works, but is a
pretty bad case of beating it with the ugly stick. My preference would
be to move the SMP-specific functions to a new file, call it msr-smp.c,
and then leave only the functions that should be included
unconditionally in msr.c (I believe it is cleaner to do it that way than
the opposite.)
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-16 22:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-16 7:32 linux-next: Tree for December 16 Stephen Rothwell
2009-12-16 17:24 ` linux-next: Tree for December 16 (amd64_edac) Randy Dunlap
2009-12-16 17:32 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-12-16 17:45 ` Borislav Petkov
2009-12-16 18:36 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-12-16 21:51 ` [PATCH -next] x86 msrs: alloc/free for CONFIG_SMP=n Randy Dunlap
2009-12-16 21:58 ` Borislav Petkov
2009-12-16 22:02 ` Randy Dunlap
2009-12-16 22:41 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2009-12-16 22:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-12-16 23:16 ` Borislav Petkov
2009-12-17 1:00 ` [tip:x86/urgent] x86, msr: msrs_alloc/free " tip-bot for Borislav Petkov
2009-12-16 21:54 ` linux-next: Tree for December 16 (amd64_edac) Borislav Petkov
2009-12-16 22:26 ` [PATCH -next] power: fix printk formats Randy Dunlap
2009-12-16 22:26 ` Randy Dunlap
2009-12-16 22:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-12-16 22:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=4B296209.2010902@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=borislav.petkov@amd.com \
--cc=linux-next@vger \
--cc=petkovbb@googlemail.com \
--cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/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.