On 08/06/2010 06:21 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 08/06/2010 06:08 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>> >>> I'm not sure the above is decipherable. Please provide an incremental >>> patch with a more detailed description. >> >> YH was saying I overoptimized, and it looks like he is right, >> although there are only one or two machines in existence that >> are likely to be affected. >> >> Untested patch to remove the cleverness below. It it boots all >> is well. >> > > This makes sense to me. Yinghai, do you have a system that is actually > affected, and if so, could you test this patch? no, i don't have those kind of system. found it when i was preparing more smp_register_lapic_address patcheset. I suggest we still keep !acpi_lapic checking, that should always right. Yinghai -- 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
|