From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932514AbVKWEjF (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Nov 2005 23:39:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932515AbVKWEjF (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Nov 2005 23:39:05 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:62348 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932514AbVKWEjD (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Nov 2005 23:39:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:38:47 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Ashok Raj Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ashok.raj@intel.com, ak@muc.de, gregkh@suse.de, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Convert bigsmp to use flat physical mode Message-Id: <20051122203847.7d01f4c5.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20051121170411.A15347@unix-os.sc.intel.com> References: <20051122000204.890352000@araj-sfield-2> <20051121170411.A15347@unix-os.sc.intel.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ashok Raj wrote: > > @@ -219,13 +225,18 @@ static void __devinit MP_processor_info > cpu_set(num_processors, cpu_possible_map); > num_processors++; > > - if ((num_processors > 8) && > - APIC_XAPIC(ver) && > - (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)) > - def_to_bigsmp = 1; > - else > - def_to_bigsmp = 0; > - > + if (CPU_HOTPLUG_ENABLED || (num_processors > 8)) { > + switch (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor) { > + case X86_VENDOR_INTEL: > + if (!APIC_XAPIC(ver)) { > + def_to_bigsmp = 0; > + break; > + } > + /* If P4 and above fall through */ > + case X86_VENDOR_AMD: > + def_to_bigsmp = 1; > + } > + } > bios_cpu_apicid[num_processors - 1] = m->mpc_apicid; The code you're patching here is changed: if ((num_processors > 8) && ((APIC_XAPIC(ver) && (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)) || (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD))) def_to_bigsmp = 1; But the fixup was obvious. While I was there I unindented the body of the switch statement by one tab stop, as we usually do. Please avoid sending multiple patches with the same Subject:, thanks.