Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 01/13] x86/apic: Construct a selector for the interrupt delivery mode | From | Dou Liyang <> | Date | Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:48:03 +0800 |
| |
Hi Baoquan,
At 09/13/2017 10:30 AM, Baoquan He wrote: > Hi dou, > > On 09/12/17 at 09:20am, Dou Liyang wrote: >> I thought again and again, I would not change this check logic. >> >> Because actually, we have three possibilities: >> >> 1. ACPI on chip >> 2. 82489DX >> 3. no APIC >> >> lapic_is_integrated() is used to check the APIC's type which is >> APIC on chip or 82489DX. It has a prerequisite, we should avoid >> the third possibility(no APIC) first, which is decided by >> boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC) and smp_found_config. So, the original >> logic: >> >> if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC) && !smp_found_config) > > I won't insist that the logic need be changed. From the test result, the > patchset works very well with notsc specified. And the whole patchset > looks not risky. Maybe the patch putting acpi_early_init() earlier can > be posted independently and involve other ARCHes maintainer to review. >
Yes, I will send it as an independent patch, and Cc other ARCH maintainers
> About the code logic, I think the confusion comes from the unclear > condition check. E.g the above case, you said it's used to check > discrete apic, in fact !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC) could means 3 > cases: > 1) discrete apic > 2) no apic > 3) integrated apic but disabled by bios.
Indeed
> > See, that's why it's confusing, the condition of judgement is not > adequate. I don't know why the code contributer wanted to check discrete > apic case with it. > > Anyway, after discussion, it's clear to me now. And the code works well. > So it's up to you to change it or not. Except of this place, the whole > patchset looks good.
Thank you very much for your review and test.
Thanks, dou. > > Thanks > Baoquan > >> >> ...is not just for 82489DX, but also for no APIC. >> >> It looks more correct and understandable than us. >> >> I am sorry my comments were wrong, and misled us. I will modify it >> in my next version. >> >> BTW, How about your test result, is this series OK? >> >> Thanks, >> dou. >> >> > > >
| |