Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 09:07 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 23:59 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Wednesday 25 January 2006 08:10, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > It assumes that all x86 SMP machines have APICs. That's untrue of
> Voyager.
>> > > > I think we can probably live with this assumption - others would know
>> > > > better than I.
>> > >
>> > > Early x86s didn't have APICs and they are still often disabled on not so
>> > > old mobile CPUs. I don't think it's a good assumption to make for i386.
>> > >
>> >
>> > But how many of those do SMP?
>>
>> even on SMP boxes you regularly need to (runtime) disable apics. Several
>> boards out there just have busted apics, or at least when used with
>> linux. "noapic" is one of the more frequent things distro support people
>> tell customers over the phone....
> Checking whether ioapic_setup_disabled is set should suffice, right?
> Does the patch below look good?
Actually hard_smp_processor_id should only care about local apics.
Disabling the io_apics should have no affect, on this code path.
So I believe testing for io_apics being enabled is actively wrong.
If the local apics are disabled the feature flag should be cleared,
and we are uniprocessor anyway.
Eric
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
