On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:36:32 -0500
James Bottomley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 20:04 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I think arch code should do it before calling start_kernel(), really.
> > It's
> > just such a basic part of the kernel framework.
>
> Hmm ... well, getting at current_thread_info()->cpu is possible, but
> nasty to audit, I would have thought (given that we're in assembler
> before start_kernel is called).
Well. It's the assembly code which chose to call start_kernel(). It could
call something else.
> > A less wholesome but perhaps simpler solution would be to call the new
> > setup_smp_processor_id() on entry to start_kernel().
>
> I was wondering about simply replacing boot_cpu_init() with
> smp_prepare_boot_cpu(). By and large they do the same thing on most
> archs, and mostly they don't seem to depend on setup_arch() having been
> called.
That won't fix the other bugs - we're presently calling printk() prior to
setup_arch(), and printk uses smp_procesor_id().
> However, introducing setup_smp_processor_id() will also work ... I'll
> see if I can do it in an easy way.
It's a bit odd - I think non-zero BSPs happen a bit more often than
only-on-voyager.
-
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]