not needed patch

not needed patch

[Yinghai Lu]

Ingo.

commit fbdcf18df73758b2e187ab94678b30cd5f6ff9f9  is not needed. 
another patch  (by you !! commit 699d934d5f958d7944d195c03c334f28cc0b3669  x86: fixup cpu_info array conversion)
already removed clearing of c->cpu_index. in identify_cpu

also it is not consisent to smpboot_32.c. (it will assign id to cpu_index right after 
 	*c = boot_cpu_data;
)

by revert commit fbdcf18df73758b2e187ab94678b30cd5f6ff9f9, we could use c->cpu_index in identify_cpu.

YH

commit fbdcf18df73758b2e187ab94678b30cd5f6ff9f9
Author: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
Date:   Wed Dec 19 23:20:19 2007 +0100

    x86: fix show cpuinfo cpu number always zero
    
    when called by setup_arch) after smp_store_cpu_info() had set it to the
    correct value.
    
    The error shows up in 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' will all cpus = 0.
    
    Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
    Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
    Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
    Cc: Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>
    Cc: Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
    Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
    Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
    Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot_64.c
index 500670c..5948895 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot_64.c
@@ -141,8 +141,8 @@ static void __cpuinit smp_store_cpu_info(int id)
 	struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data(id);
 
 	*c = boot_cpu_data;
-	c->cpu_index = id;
 	identify_cpu(c);
+	c->cpu_index = id;
 	print_cpu_info(c);
 }
 

Re: not needed patch

[Ingo Molnar]

* Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.Lu@Sun.COM> wrote:

> Ingo.
> 
> commit fbdcf18df73758b2e187ab94678b30cd5f6ff9f9 is not needed. another 
> patch (by you !! commit 699d934d5f958d7944d195c03c334f28cc0b3669 x86: 
> fixup cpu_info array conversion) already removed clearing of 
> c->cpu_index. in identify_cpu
> also it is not consisent to smpboot_32.c. (it will assign id to 
> cpu_index right after
>
>  	*c = boot_cpu_data;
> )

well, it might in the worst-case be a superfluous change, but not cause 
any problems in 2.6.24, right?

> by revert commit fbdcf18df73758b2e187ab94678b30cd5f6ff9f9, we could 
> use c->cpu_index in identify_cpu.

but that's 2.6.25 stuff, right? Travis?

	Ingo

Re: not needed patch

[Mike Travis]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.Lu@Sun.COM> wrote:
> 
>> Ingo.
>>
>> commit fbdcf18df73758b2e187ab94678b30cd5f6ff9f9 is not needed. another 
>> patch (by you !! commit 699d934d5f958d7944d195c03c334f28cc0b3669 x86: 
>> fixup cpu_info array conversion) already removed clearing of 
>> c->cpu_index. in identify_cpu
>> also it is not consisent to smpboot_32.c. (it will assign id to 
>> cpu_index right after
>>
>>  	*c = boot_cpu_data;
>> )
> 
> well, it might in the worst-case be a superfluous change, but not cause 
> any problems in 2.6.24, right?
> 
>> by revert commit fbdcf18df73758b2e187ab94678b30cd5f6ff9f9, we could 
>> use c->cpu_index in identify_cpu.
> 
> but that's 2.6.25 stuff, right? Travis?

Since 6.5.24 needs to close soon, I'll queue up this change for 6.5.25.

Thanks everyone!

-Mike

Re: not needed patch

[Mike Travis]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.Lu@Sun.COM> wrote:
> 
>> Ingo.
>>
>> commit fbdcf18df73758b2e187ab94678b30cd5f6ff9f9 is not needed. another 
>> patch (by you !! commit 699d934d5f958d7944d195c03c334f28cc0b3669 x86: 
>> fixup cpu_info array conversion) already removed clearing of 
>> c->cpu_index. in identify_cpu
>> also it is not consisent to smpboot_32.c. (it will assign id to 
>> cpu_index right after
>>
>>  	*c = boot_cpu_data;
>> )
> 
> well, it might in the worst-case be a superfluous change, but not cause 
> any problems in 2.6.24, right?
> 
>> by revert commit fbdcf18df73758b2e187ab94678b30cd5f6ff9f9, we could 
>> use c->cpu_index in identify_cpu.
> 
> but that's 2.6.25 stuff, right? Travis?
> 

Looking at this more closely, yes my change is not needed and should be
removed.  I'm not sure what caused my cpu # to be all zeros when I was
testing, but it now works ok without my change.

Thanks,
Mike

Re: not needed patch

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote:

> >> by revert commit fbdcf18df73758b2e187ab94678b30cd5f6ff9f9, we could 
> >> use c->cpu_index in identify_cpu.
> > 
> > but that's 2.6.25 stuff, right? Travis?
> > 
> 
> Looking at this more closely, yes my change is not needed and should 
> be removed.  I'm not sure what caused my cpu # to be all zeros when I 
> was testing, but it now works ok without my change.

how about this question:

> > well, it might in the worst-case be a superfluous change, but not 
> > cause any problems in 2.6.24, right?

	Ingo

Re: not needed patch

[Mike Travis]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> by revert commit fbdcf18df73758b2e187ab94678b30cd5f6ff9f9, we could 
>>>> use c->cpu_index in identify_cpu.
>>> but that's 2.6.25 stuff, right? Travis?
>>>
>> Looking at this more closely, yes my change is not needed and should 
>> be removed.  I'm not sure what caused my cpu # to be all zeros when I 
>> was testing, but it now works ok without my change.
> 
> how about this question:
> 
>>> well, it might in the worst-case be a superfluous change, but not 
>>> cause any problems in 2.6.24, right?
> 
> 	Ingo

I don't think it hurts anything except as noted, it wouldn't be available
to the subfunctions (like identify_cpu) that might need the cpu_index
(which also is noted that none currently do.)  

-Mike

Re: not needed patch

[Yinghai Lu]

On Thursday 20 December 2007 06:29:06 am Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.Lu@Sun.COM> wrote:
> 
> > Ingo.
> > 
> > commit fbdcf18df73758b2e187ab94678b30cd5f6ff9f9 is not needed. another 
> > patch (by you !! commit 699d934d5f958d7944d195c03c334f28cc0b3669 x86: 
> > fixup cpu_info array conversion) already removed clearing of 
> > c->cpu_index. in identify_cpu
> > also it is not consisent to smpboot_32.c. (it will assign id to 
> > cpu_index right after
> >
> >  	*c = boot_cpu_data;
> > )
> 
> well, it might in the worst-case be a superfluous change, but not cause 
> any problems in 2.6.24, right?

now it is ok with 2.6.24.

> 
> > by revert commit fbdcf18df73758b2e187ab94678b30cd5f6ff9f9, we could 
> > use c->cpu_index in identify_cpu.
> 
> but that's 2.6.25 stuff, right? Travis?
or at least before bewfore merging smpboot_32.c and smpboot_64.c

YH