Re: [PATCH 00/10] x86, xsave: some code cleanups and reworks

[Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 09:32:35AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/20/2010 01:17 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > 
> > well, not true, this id is being set in setup_per_cpu_areas()
> > note the snippet
> > 
> > 		if (cpu == boot_cpu_id)
> > 			switch_to_new_gdt(cpu);
> > 
> > but cycle of assignment is done over all possible cpus so
> > smp_processor_id will be = 0 for BP but definitely it's
> > confusing and better to check for BP via explicit cpu == boot_cpu_id
> > I think. Though I might be missing something.
> > 
> 
> I think the style (!smp_processor_id()) is already in use in other
> places, but we should be consistent in style; if you want to introduce a
> new style I certainly agree that (is_boot_cpu()) is pretty clear but it
> should be introduced universally.
> 
> 	-hpa
>

yes, also I bet there will be places with patterns like

	cpu = smp_processor_id();
	if (!cpu)
	 or
	if (cpu == 0)

so every single smp_processor_id and "raw" version as well should be
checked. I'll take a look as only get ability. If Robert (or anyone)
will like to beat me on this -- I would be only glad ;)

	-- Cyrill