From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com>
Cc: vgoyal@in.ibm.com, hbabu@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: add lapic_shutdown for x86_64
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:28:15 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m1odeo6ns0.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <471FB8D2.5060208@ct.jp.nec.com> (Hiroshi Shimamoto's message of "Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:27:46 -0700")
Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com> writes:
>> Do we really have to introduce this function for 64bit? I remember some
>> issues were faced on i386 w.r.t kernel enabling the LAPIC against the
>> wishes of BIOS hence kernel was disabling it while shutting down. No
>> such problems were reported for x86_64 hence this function existed only
>> for i386.
>
> Thanks for the comment. I didn't know the issues, so I'd simply added
> this function for unification.
>
>> If that is the case, probably we don't have to introduce lapic_shutdown()
>> for x86_64. Instead call lapic_shutdown() for X86_32, and disble_local_APIC()
>> otherwise?
>
> I will do that. I was thinking which is good when posting these patches.
I'm a little concerned here. This sounds like forced unification.
If we can't clean up the infrastructure so things are obviously better
and cleanly factored for both architectures we should not unify the files.
As a general principle I would rather have two crudy files side by
side the one super crudy file.
So for unification I suggest finally fixing this right and taking the
apics completely out of the kexec on panic path.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-25 0:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-20 1:18 [PATCH 0/3] x86: unify crash_32/64.c Hiroshi Shimamoto
2007-10-20 1:21 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86: add lapic_shutdown for x86_64 Hiroshi Shimamoto
2007-10-24 6:29 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-10-24 21:27 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
2007-10-25 0:28 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2007-10-29 22:45 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
2007-10-29 22:39 ` [PATCH] Revert " Hiroshi Shimamoto
2007-10-29 23:15 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-10-30 0:05 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
2007-10-30 1:06 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-20 1:23 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86: add safe_smp_processor_id " Hiroshi Shimamoto
2007-10-24 6:31 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-10-24 9:01 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-10-20 1:24 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86: unify crash_32/64.c Hiroshi Shimamoto
2007-10-20 10:50 ` [PATCH 0/3] " Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-24 6:34 ` Vivek Goyal
2007-10-24 16:28 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
2007-10-25 17:58 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
2007-10-26 21:43 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
2007-10-26 22:37 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-27 0:13 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
2007-10-27 1:15 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
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=m1odeo6ns0.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com \
--cc=hbabu@us.ibm.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vgoyal@in.ibm.com \
/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