Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: mce init optimization and signedness fixup

> So when I change the above code snippet to:
> 
> +	if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCE)) {
> +		printk(KERN_INFO "CPU%i: No machine check support available\n",
> +			smp_processor_id());
> +		return;
> 
> Would this make the whole patch acceptable then?

I think the fundamental direction is wrong. "Do you have a machine check
like facility" is a CPU specific question that belongs in the CPU
specific code.

If some of that CPU specific code is wrong, fix it there.

Alan
-
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 0/2] x86: MCE optimization and cleanups
    • From: "Joerg Roedel" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: mce init optimization and signedness fixup
    • From: "Christoph Egger" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: mce init optimization and signedness fixup
    • From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: mce init optimization and signedness fixup
    • From: "Christoph Egger" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Aggregation in embedded context, is kernel GPL2 prejudiceagainst embedded systems?
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc: Switch to generic WARN_ON()/BUG_ON()
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: mce init optimization and signedness fixup
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: mce init optimization and signedness fixup
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]