Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: cpu_debug.c prepare report if files areinappropriate or CPU is not supported

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 18:50 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > +		if (!per_cpu(cpu_modelflag, cpu))
> > 
> > hm, on a second look - the whole cpu_model / cpu_modelflag 
> > business in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpu_debug.c looks 
> > over-complicated and broken. You encode it into a 
> > 'modelflag':
> > 
> >                 per_cpu(cpu_model, cpu) = ((cpui->x86_vendor << 16) |
> >                                            (cpui->x86 << 8) |
> >                                            (cpui->x86_model));
> > 
> > just to decode it later on:
> > 
> >         flag = per_cpu(cpu_model, cpu);
> > 
> >         switch (flag >> 16) {
> > 
> > That does not make much sense. Please use a proper 
> > boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor switch() statement, ok?
> > 
> 
> I am using flags for each cpu, in case there are different CPU in the
> sockets:
> 
> struct cpuinfo_x86 *cpui;
> cpui = &cpu_data(cpu);
> 
> Do you still think that boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor is better option in
> case for multiple CPUs.

yes. Assymetric SMP never really happened on x86.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/