lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: fix section mismatch in LAPIC initialization
>>> On 03.01.11 at 19:29, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 01/03/2011 07:03 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Doing things conditionally upon spm_processor_id() being zero is
>> generally a bad idea, as this means CPU 0 cannot be offlined and
>> brought back online later again. While there may be other places where
>> this is done, I think adding more of those should be avoided so that
>> some day SMP really becomes "symmetrical".
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
>
> The description doesn't really match the subject line...

The subject, imo, doesn't need further explanation. The description
was meant to explain why the function gets broken up rather than
just fiddling with other (called) functions' annotations. Are you
suggesting to drop the description altogether?

Jan



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-04 09:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site