William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote (on Friday, July 04, 2003 12:31:35 -0700):
>> Dirtier, but possibly lower line count.
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:53:54PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> I disagree with the "dirtier" bit, but still. I'd rather have this sort
> of stuff put into subarch, where most people don't have to look at it.
> More to the point, the changes would be confined to the big-iron arches,
> and have less chance of breaking anyone else for things they don't
> care about, nor do them any benefit. Touching this code is fragile as
> hell, so if it can be confined, it should be ...
> It'd also remove the long-standing abuse of phys_cpu_present_map, which
> would probably make the rest of the code clearer.
That's a change with deeper semantic implications as it's relying on
different information.
The phys_cpu_present_map bits were to divorce its width from NR_CPUS
in a portable way. Shifting to bios_cpu_map[] should only change cpu
wakeup. IO-APIC physid reassignment code still needs a variable-width
map (I suppose you could use integers) of some kind.
-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 22:00:23 EST