From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754361AbbCXUGF (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:06:05 -0400 Received: from relay3.sgi.com ([192.48.152.1]:52039 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752950AbbCXUGD (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:06:03 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 495 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:06:03 EDT Message-ID: <5511C1B2.8040706@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:57:38 -0700 From: Mike Travis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hedi Berriche , Dimitri Sivanich Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] X86, UV: Update UV APIC driver check References: <20150323172142.904806569@asylum.americas.sgi.com> <20150323172144.649316225@asylum.americas.sgi.com> <20150324063231.GA26302@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20150324063231.GA26302@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/23/2015 11:32 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Mike Travis wrote: > >> Fix a bug in the oem check function that determines if the system >> is a UV system and the BIOS is compatible with the kernel's UV apic >> driver. This prevents some possibly obscure panics and guards the >> system against being started on SGI hardware that does not have the >> required kernel support. [...] > > This would be one patch ... > >> [...] Also add update for new UV3000 system. > > ... and that's a second patch. The second one is purely cosmetic. The same UV HUB is used for UV2000 and UV3000 so all this is doing is avoiding confusion when someone thinks the kernel should be supporting UV3000. > n >> The first "OEM" check was also optimized to return faster if the >> system is not an SGI or UV system. > > Looks like this mixes up with the fix and can be part of the first > patch - although ideally it would have been good to create a 3 patch > series to preserve the separation of the various changes. If you think that's necessary, then I can do that. Overall the changes are very minimal and basically guard against whatever changes will be in UV4 or possible non-UV SGI systems (using the "SGI" OEM label in BIOS). > > Thanks, > > Ingo >