Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 04 Jan 2011 08:42:14 +0000 | From | "Jan Beulich" <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |