From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com [207.106.133.19]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F1BDDFC9 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:24:55 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:24:40 -0500 From: Nathan Lynch To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH] kill useless SMT code in prom_hold_cpus Message-ID: <20080715022440.GU9594@localdomain> References: <20080708223631.GP9594@localdomain> <1216087555.7740.42.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1216087555.7740.42.camel@pasglop> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 17:36 -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote: > > I think this code that counts SMT threads and compares against NR_CPUS > > is an artifact of pre-powerpc-merge ppc64. We care about starting > > only primary threads in the OF client code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch > > That looks good. I'm not merging it right now because I want to dbl > check that it's allright on all SMT machines. IE. We compare reg[0] > against _prom->cpu now instead of interrupt_server[0] and I thus > want to ensure it's the same everywhere. Thanks. Looks like prom_find_boot_cpu is setting _prom->cpu to reg (or 0), so I think it should be fine... a system where reg differed from interrupt_server[0] would have been broken before this patch anyway, I think?