Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. I don't know if anyone does. It looks like sfi aka moorestown and visws are what are affected. That is why I made a patch that any boot where we exercise a local apic will exercise. Arguably if it is best to just remove that hunk from my patch, so we have something that is safe to backport to 2.6.35.1. > found it when i was preparing more smp_register_lapic_address patcheset. > > I suggest we still keep !acpi_lapic checking, that should always right. Ultimately we want to remove the code duplication entirely. Eric -- 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
|