Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: cpu_debug.c prepare report if files are inappropriate or CPU is not supported

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 21:16 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > Do you still think that boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor is better option in
> > > > > case for multiple CPUs.
> > > > 
> > > > yes. Assymetric SMP never really happened on x86.
> > > 
> > > It did but not between vendors. You can get away with a vendor 
> > > assumption but cpu type (mixed 486SX/DX, PII/PIII/Celeron) mixed 
> > > steppings and mixed speeds do occur. We've never supported the 
> > > mixed 486SX cases but the PII/PIII cases work (or at least 
> > > worked).
> > 
> > yeah - but look at the specific purpose here: we are deciding 
> > whether to print out state information related to major CPU 
> > features. Mixed steppings/speeds might happen, mixed apic / 
> > non-lapic not really.
> > 
> 
> We are trying to debug each CPU, so we should also collect information
> from each CPU.
> 
> Just reading information from boot CPU and display information for 
> all CPU is not correct. If we are getting information from boot 
> CPU then we only need to show information for boot CPU and ignore 
> others.
> 
> I am trying to adding more features which will be unique for each 
> CPU/core.
> 
> So it seems current model is correct where I am collecting 
> information for each CPU and printing information for each CPU.

that's OK - and we have all the per cpu data too.

The main beef i had with your code is that it copies CPU enumeration 
over into some local variables (cpu_modelflag, cpu_model) with 
redundant encodings and decodings which dont fully work.

Is there anything that your encoding/decoding does that cannot be 
done via the standard methods?

Do:

   git grep X86_VENDOR_INTEL arch/x86/

To see existing coding practices that make use of these facilities.

	Ingo