From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86,apic: Checking kernel option before detect_init_APIC()
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:00:11 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090409200011.GD7558@lenovo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b9df5fa10904082208x69dc3b2ex46b8edac7d8cee81@mail.gmail.com>
[Rakib Mullick - Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 11:08:43AM +0600]
| On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
| >
| > * Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com> wrote:
| >
| > Hm, are you sure this is a cleanup only? (i.e. no side-effects)
| My quick review over code, i don't think there's any.Unless I'm not
| missing anything. Kernel option has been passed when before kernel
| starts, so I think it's safe.
Hi Rakib,
yes, disable_apic early parameter handled earlier then
init_apic_mappings is being called but we could reach
disable_apic=1 with not only as kernel option but as
result of acpi_mps_check for example (which
is called earlier then init_apic_mappings though).
So this snippet is safe I believe.
| >
| > Also, even if it's a pure cleanup, wouldnt it be even cleaner to
| > propagate this check into detect_init_APIC() - and thus get rid of
| > the open-coded disable_apic check altogether?
In point! We do same fasion check in APIC_init_uniprocessor
| Yes, could be. How we'll understand that whether apic has been
| disabled from kernel option or not (if we requires later on)?
AFAIS, as only we set disable_apic=1 from kernel option (or other
ways) we clear X86_FEATURE_APIC likewise. So I don't see easy way
to distinguish the reason why apic is disabled. But to be precise
APIC_init_uniprocessor print us some info.
So I'm for Ingo's idea!
|
| Rakib
| >
| > Ingo
| >
|
Cyrill
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-09 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-28 1:25 [PATCH] x86,apic: Checking kernel option before detect_init_APIC() Rakib Mullick
2009-04-08 14:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-09 5:08 ` Rakib Mullick
2009-04-09 20:00 ` Cyrill Gorcunov [this message]
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=20090409200011.GD7558@lenovo \
--to=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rakib.mullick@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox