From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753199AbYIVKAo (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:00:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751733AbYIVKAg (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:00:36 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:56995 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751645AbYIVKAf (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:00:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:00:24 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: do_boot_cpu - add check if we have ESR register Message-ID: <20080922100024.GA24705@elte.hu> References: <20080922093603.GC7663@localhost> <20080922095148.GD7663@localhost> <86802c440809220257q4e1b4c81o534c957d919a6b3c@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86802c440809220257q4e1b4c81o534c957d919a6b3c@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Yinghai Lu wrote: > > Actually it's resend of the patch. On previous attempt Yinghai was > > proposed to choose: > > > >> one apic_version or boot_cpu_apic_version could be enough > > > > but I think it should be different patch which does cleaning up > > variables usage. So for now I think _this_ patch is enough since > > idea is to prevent of touching nonexistant register rather code > > cleaning (whci could be done later). > > do we have systems that have mixed cpu supported with different apic > version? i dont think that ever happened in the past. Vendors have trouble keeping same-cpu type systems going ;-) OTOH, if it's simple to have multi-version support then lets do that throughout. (although we certainly cannot test it. Perhaps we can provoke it artificially via a hack that artificially degrades one cpu's apic version or so.) Ingo