From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755378AbZHTV1L (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:27:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754579AbZHTV1L (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:27:11 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:35169 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754303AbZHTV1K (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:27:10 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,416,1246863600"; d="scan'208";a="485752961" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add /proc/cpuinfo/physical id quirks From: Suresh Siddha Reply-To: Suresh Siddha To: Alex Chiang Cc: Andi Kleen , "hpa@zytor.com" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <20090820212024.GG13061@ldl.fc.hp.com> References: <20090814163618.GQ7185@ldl.fc.hp.com> <1250276831.3077.17.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> <20090814192730.GA6431@ldl.fc.hp.com> <1250279799.3077.41.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> <20090819210251.GD13061@ldl.fc.hp.com> <1250794594.2754.10.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> <20090820205425.GF13061@ldl.fc.hp.com> <20090820210342.GC29994@basil.fritz.box> <20090820212024.GG13061@ldl.fc.hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel Corp Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:26:17 -0700 Message-Id: <1250803577.2754.30.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 14:20 -0700, Alex Chiang wrote: > It turns out I need to rework my patch anyway because I need to > think about the case where a user disables some cores in the > BIOS, in which case my (fragile) table selection scheme falls > apart. These are the sort of reasons why we want topology detection to be completely based on what cpuid instruction says and nothing else. thanks, suresh