From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752941Ab3KLLXq (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 06:23:46 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f175.google.com ([209.85.215.175]:57393 "EHLO mail-ea0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751509Ab3KLLXn (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 06:23:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:23:38 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Yinghai Lu , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/boot changes for v3.13 Message-ID: <20131112112338.GA12801@gmail.com> References: <20131111170558.GA12741@gmail.com> <20131112103422.GA12849@pd.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131112103422.GA12849@pd.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:37:48PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > How do you know CPU0 and CPU1 are in same package? > > Why is that relevant? So I suspect what Yinghai tried to say if CPU0 and CPU1 are not on the same node we do the printout incorrectly. Arguably this was a pre-existing condition, but would be nice to fix it now that this code has emerged out of steady bitrot! :-) How difficult would it be in your opinion? I think the best way to go about it would be to include CPU#0 in the list - I don't think anyone will be confused by the fact that it has already booted. That way the 'gap' for CPU#0 would be eliminated. Or something like that. Btw., while staring at that code once more I noticed the following small nit, there's a pre-existing weird way of writing the -1 literal: if (current_node > (-1)) Thanks, Ingo