From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1753738AbZKHNqV@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753738AbZKHNqV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:46:21 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753692AbZKHNqU
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:46:20 -0500
Received: from mga10.intel.com ([192.55.52.92]:34457 "EHLO
	fmsmga102.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753684AbZKHNqT (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:46:19 -0500
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,703,1249282800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="511789868"
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 21:19:39 +0800
From: Yong Wang <yong.y.wang@linux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Yong Wang <yong.y.wang@linux.intel.com>,
       Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
       "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
       "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, therm: Only read the initial value of thermal LVT
	entry on BSP
Message-ID: <20091108131939.GA1005@ywang-moblin2.bj.intel.com>
References: <20091107001736.GA30790@ywang-moblin2.bj.intel.com> <1257562565.4083.485.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> <20091108102520.GC7233@elte.hu> <20091108123812.GA877@ywang-moblin2.bj.intel.com> <20091108131655.GA12837@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20091108131655.GA12837@elte.hu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 02:16:55PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Yong Wang <yong.y.wang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 11:25:21AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > i dont disagree with the fix, but could we please do it a bit cleaner, 
> > > and initialize a proper file-scope lvtthrm_init value from a different 
> > > boot-CPU-only function? (not intel_init_thermal)
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks for your comments. Just want to make sure I understand correctly.
> > By 'file-scope', do you want me to define lvtthrm_init as a static
> > variable but not to define it in any function?
> 
> Correct - i'd suggest to put it next to other file-scope variables at 
> the top of the .c file. Maybe make it __read_mostly as well.
> 

OK, will do.

> > > that makes it cleaner, and also it will work if we dont boot on 
> > > cpu==0. (should that ever occur)
> > > 
> > 
> > May I know when will this happen?
> 
> It's not really expected - we factorize the CPU IDs (which are logical) 
> so that the boot CPU is 0. But relying on cpu==0 is the boot cpu is not 
> clean and the resulting code is harder to read.
> 

There does not seem to be 'boot-CPU-only function' in that .c file. What
about changing cpu==0 to cpu==boot_cpu_id? Does that help?

Thanks
-Yong