On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 13:18 -0500, Dave Anderson wrote:
> Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 21:38 +0530, Rachita Kothiyal wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:11:36AM -0500, Dave Anderson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for handling this. I haven't looked at this, and correct
> > me
> > > > if I'm wrong, but the kernel (what version exactly?) now has
> > contains
> > > > a _cpu_pda[NR_CPUS] array containing pointers to the actual per-
> > cpu
> > > > x8664_pda structures.
> > >
> > > Hi Dave,
> > >
> > > This change was introduced 2.6.16-rc1 onwards.
> > > >
> > > > Unless I'm missing something, that simplifies things and should
> > work
> > > > just fine. But I can't test it here other than to verify that
> > it's
> > > > backwards compatible. Can you verify that?
> > >
> > > Yes, this is infact more simpler and cleaner. I have incorporated
> > the
> > > changes and regenerated the patch, which I am sending along. I
> > have
> > > also tested it on a 2.6.16-rc1 kernel, and it works fine.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Rachita
> >
> > Hmm.. Lots of duplicated code. I hacked the same thing earlier to
> > make
> > it work. I incorporated my changes into yours.
> >
> > Does this look better ?
> >
> > (BTW, is there a way to combine CPU_PDA_READ() and _CPU_PDA_READ()
> > by
> > abstracting some of it out ?)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Badari
> >
> >
> Rachita, Badari,
>
> I think I agree about the unnecessary duplication of code in
> x86_64_cpu_pda_init() and x86_64_get_smp_cpus().
>
> And while abstracting some of it out to CPU_PDA_READ() may be
> desirable, keeping them separate may make future maintenance
> and/or understandability of the differences may make it worth
> keeping them separate. But I don't have a preference either way.
>
> However, upon further review, I don't see how this piece of the
> patch can work for x86_64_display_cpu_data():
>
> @@ -2828,7 +2855,10 @@ x86_64_display_cpu_data(void)
> boot_cpu = TRUE;
> cpus = 1;
> }
> q
> - cpu_pda = symbol_value("cpu_pda");
> + if (symbol_exists("_cpu_data"))
> + cpu_pda = symbol_value("_cpu_pda");
> + else if (symbol_exists("cpu_data"))
> + cpu_pda = symbol_value("cpu_pda");
>
> for (cpu = 0; cpu < cpus; cpu++) {
> if (boot_cpu)
>
> because here is how "cpu_data" is used later on in the function:
>
Yep. I just took those changes from Rachita's patch.
Let me look and get back to you.
Thanks,
Badari
