From: Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] x86, xsave: some code cleanups and reworks
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:46:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100720194606.GO26154@erda.amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100720192717.GC6227@lenovo>
On 20.07.10 15:27:17, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:50:47PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> >
> > This patch series contains some cleanups and reworks I made during
> > code review and feature implementation for upcoming cpus.
> >
> > Most patches refactor the xsave initialization that is very dependent
> > on fpu initialization. This series starts to decouple this a little
> > bit as xsave not only supports fpu features. Also this is an attempt
> > to ease the xsave interface by making some of the functions and
> > variables static.
> >
> > There is also one patch that removes boot_cpu_id variable, which is
> > not really related to xsave. Maybe this should be applied to another
> > branch.
> >
> > The patches are relative to today's tip/x86/xsave branch.
> >
> > (The patches are small for better review and rebasing.)
> >
> > -Robert
> >
>
> Hi Robert, I recall there was a thread related to boot_cpu_id and
> cpu = 0. Unfortunately I can't find it neither in my mbox nor somewhere
> in net at moment.
I found this patch:
b3572e3 x86/voyager: fix compile breakage caused by dc1e35c6e95e8923cf1d3510438b63c600fee1e2
indicating that boot cpu id could be different than 0.
But either this is broken again, or the issue is gone in a different
way.
> Ie technically speaking -- yes boot_cpu_id will be 0
> but perhaps instead of magic !cpu and friends explicit boot_cpu_id might
> be better for code reading. It might be is_boot_cpu() macro helper or
> so as well.
>
> Though I don't have strong opinion but for ones who will be
> reading the code first time it might be confusing :) Agreed?
That's true, but once you know...
I could make a follow on patch with an is_boot_cpu() macro. Ingo, what
do you think?
But first question is, is it always !smp_processor_id()? At least
current implementation indicates this:
void __cpuinit identify_secondary_cpu(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
{
BUG_ON(c == &boot_cpu_data);
...
with:
#define boot_cpu_data cpu_data[0]
... which is valid for 32 and 64 bit.
-Robert
--
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-20 19:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-20 18:50 [PATCH 00/10] x86, xsave: some code cleanups and reworks Robert Richter
2010-07-20 18:50 ` [PATCH 01/10] x86, xsave: do not include asm/i387.h in asm/xsave.h Robert Richter
2010-07-20 21:46 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-07-20 18:50 ` [PATCH 02/10] x86, xsave: 32/64 bit boot cpu check unification in initialization Robert Richter
2010-07-20 21:47 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-07-21 0:40 ` [tip:x86/xsave] " tip-bot for Robert Richter
2010-07-20 18:50 ` [PATCH 03/10] x86: removing boot_cpu_id variable Robert Richter
2010-07-20 18:50 ` [PATCH 04/10] x86, xsave: moving boot cpu initialization to xsave_init() Robert Richter
2010-07-20 21:48 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-07-21 0:40 ` [tip:x86/xsave] x86, xsave: Move " tip-bot for Robert Richter
2010-07-20 18:50 ` [PATCH 05/10] x86, xsave: make xsave_cntxt_init() static Robert Richter
2010-07-20 22:20 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-07-21 13:48 ` Robert Richter
2010-07-21 16:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-07-20 18:50 ` [PATCH 06/10] x86, xsave: do not initialize xsave in fpu_init() Robert Richter
2010-07-20 22:21 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-07-20 18:50 ` [PATCH 07/10] x86, xsave: reduce cpu_has_xsave checks Robert Richter
2010-07-20 22:22 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-07-20 18:50 ` [PATCH 08/10] x86, xsave: introduce xstate enable functions Robert Richter
2010-07-20 22:23 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-07-20 18:50 ` [PATCH 09/10] x86, xsave: check cpuid level for XSTATE_CPUID (0x0d) Robert Richter
2010-07-20 22:26 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-07-20 22:45 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-07-20 22:51 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-07-20 18:50 ` [PATCH 10/10] x86, xsave: make init_xstate_buf static Robert Richter
2010-07-20 22:26 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-07-20 19:27 ` [PATCH 00/10] x86, xsave: some code cleanups and reworks Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-07-20 19:46 ` Robert Richter [this message]
2010-07-20 20:05 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-07-20 20:07 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-07-20 20:17 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-07-21 16:16 ` Robert Richter
2010-07-21 16:29 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-07-21 16:32 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-07-21 16:52 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-07-21 17:01 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-07-21 17:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-07-21 17:17 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-07-21 17:24 ` Robert Richter
2010-07-21 17:37 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-07-21 19:14 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-07-20 20:22 ` H. Peter Anvin
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=20100720194606.GO26154@erda.amd.com \
--to=robert.richter@amd.com \
--cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
/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