Re: [patch] intel_cacheinfo: remove MAX_CACHE_LEAVES limit

On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 04:06:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> "Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Remove the MAX_CACHE_LEAVES limit from the routine which calculates the
> > number of cache levels using cpuid(4)
> 
> Why?  Why was the code there originally, and why is it required that it be
> removed, and why is it safe to remove it?
> 
> (IOW: your description of this patch is inadequate: it describes what was
> done, but not why it was done).

oops! Initial internal version of Venki's cpuid(4) deterministic cache
parameter identification patch used static arrays of size MAX_CACHE_LEAVES. 
Final patch which made to the base used dynamic array allocation, with this
MAX_CACHE_LEAVES limit hunk still in place. 

cpuid(4) already has a mechanism to find out the number of cache levels
implemented and there is no need for this hardcoded MAX_CACHE_LEAVES limit.

thanks,
suresh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [patch] intel_cacheinfo: remove MAX_CACHE_LEAVES limit
    • From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] intel_cacheinfo: remove MAX_CACHE_LEAVES limit
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch] stop inotify from sending random DELETE_SELF event under load
• Next by Date: [PATCH]introduce .valid callback in pm_ops
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] intel_cacheinfo: remove MAX_CACHE_LEAVES limit
• Next by thread: [PATCH] x86-64: Fix bad assumption that dualcore cpus have synced TSCs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]