From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756154Ab0K3SW6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:22:58 -0500 Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:45912 "EHLO mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755964Ab0K3SWz (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:22:55 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=m25jeh4mRldHKH2JH5Th05u5lScxPBAmoaQObFAB/pl/+MQdpZzXjXcGpg+lEtWqZk 4LxskmUzAcVaeiMLyNLbI1Ha2WJZFLDabAZ3sPl27ID+nyahU2+HzRPjwYHrdX+yRbZc EI11HfEXHUEDnQPS00oX/Agzy9YY3IKWsLPPU= Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:22:51 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Tejun Heo Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, yinghai@kernel.org, brgerst@gmail.com, penberg@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED#2 04/16] x86: Use local variable to cache smp_processor_id() in setup_local_APIC() Message-ID: <20101130182251.GC20818@lenovo> References: <1290871325-3055-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1290871325-3055-5-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <4CF53E61.1030307@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CF53E61.1030307@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 07:11:45PM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote: > This is a trivial clean up. > > * Move initialization of @cpu inside preemption disabled region as > suggested by Cyrill Gorcunov. > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo > Cc: Yinghai Lu > Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov > --- > Alright, updated yet again, but I frankly don't see the point in these code structure, if we would be referring variable taken inside preempt off this always look suspicious, i think you agree with me :) > changes. If setup_local_APIC() is being run from a different CPU, we > have a much larger problem. We're already accessing cpu local > resources (tsc, lapic) outside of preemption disabled area. But, > anyways, I don't think it matters one way or the other. > > Thanks. >