Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> - return hard_smp_processor_id() >> index_msb; >> + return initial_apic_id >> index_msb; > >> - unsigned apicid = hard_smp_processor_id(); >> + unsigned apicid = cpu_has_apic ? hard_smp_processor_id() : c->apicid; > >> - int apicid = hard_smp_processor_id(); >> + int apicid = cpu_has_apic ? hard_smp_processor_id() : c->apicid; > > Doesnt such a pattern call for the pushing of that distinction into > hard_smp_processor_id() instead? (after a careful review of all > hard_smp_processor_id() call-sites) don't want to burden system that have APIC to check that bit. YH -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|