From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
To: mingo@redhat.com
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86_32: summit_32, use BAD_APICID
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:00:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49A524D3.3090408@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1235508093-18063-1-git-send-email-jirislaby@gmail.com>
On 24.2.2009 21:41, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/summit_32.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/summit_32.c
> @@ -303,12 +303,10 @@ static inline unsigned int summit_cpu_mask_to_apicid(const cpumask_t *cpumask)
> int cpu;
>
> num_bits_set = cpus_weight(*cpumask);
> - /* Return id to all */
> if (num_bits_set>= nr_cpu_ids)
> - return 0xFF;
> + return BAD_APICID;
Actually, wasn't this intended to return all available rather than BAD
(to which would correspond the comment), but performed in a wrong
manner? This is old code, any ideas who would know this?
In my opinion the check should be removed completely to allow the code
go through same-cluster check.
In that case, the callers code is buggy, since it passes online_cpu
masks even on machines, where apics are not on the same clusters.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-25 11:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-24 17:38 [PATCH 1/2] x86_32: summit_32, use BAD_APICID jirislaby
2009-02-24 17:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86_32: summit_32, de-inline functions jirislaby
2009-02-24 17:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86_32: summit_32, use BAD_APICID Ingo Molnar
2009-02-24 20:41 ` [PATCH v2 " Jiri Slaby
2009-02-24 20:41 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] x86_32: summit_32, de-inline functions Jiri Slaby
2009-02-25 11:00 ` Jiri Slaby [this message]
2009-02-25 11:10 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] x86_32: summit_32, use BAD_APICID Ingo Molnar
2009-02-26 21:45 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86_32: apic/bigsmp_32, de-inline functions Jiri Slaby
2009-02-26 21:45 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86_32: apic/es7000_32, cpu_mask_to_apicid cleanup Jiri Slaby
2009-02-26 21:45 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86_32: apic/es7000_32, fix cpu_mask_to_apicid Jiri Slaby
2009-02-26 21:45 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86_32: apic/summit_32, " Jiri Slaby
2009-02-26 21:50 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] x86_32: apic/es7000_32, " Jiri Slaby
2009-02-26 22:00 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] x86_32: summit_32, use BAD_APICID Jiri Slaby
2009-02-28 8:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-02 9:53 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86_32: apic/bigsmp_32, de-inline functions Jiri Slaby
2009-03-02 9:53 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86_32: apic/es7000_32, cpu_mask_to_apicid cleanup Jiri Slaby
2009-03-02 9:53 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86_32: apic/es7000_32, fix cpu_mask_to_apicid Jiri Slaby
2009-03-02 9:53 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86_32: apic/summit_32, " Jiri Slaby
2009-03-08 17:00 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] x86_32: summit_32, use BAD_APICID Jiri Slaby
2009-03-11 8:45 ` cpu_mask_to_apicid: Not a valid mask! [was: x86_32: summit_32, use BAD_APICID] Jiri Slaby
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=49A524D3.3090408@gmail.com \
--to=jirislaby@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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