Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: mce init optimization and signedness fixup

[Dave Jones]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:50:12PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
 > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Christoph Egger wrote:
 > > On Thursday 11 October 2007 16:55:36 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
 > > > > > > +
 > > > > > > +	if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCA) || !cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCE)) {
 > > > > > > +		printk(KERN_INFO "CPU%i: No machine check support available\n",
 > > > > > > +			smp_processor_id());
 > > > > > > +		return;
 > > > > >
 > > > > > This breaks winchip MCE support.
 > > > >
 > > > > First, what is a winchip? It sounds to be something windows specific. ;)
 > > > > Second, can you explain in which way MCE support gets broken, please?
 > > >
 > > > First, winchip is the code name of Centaurs early x86 cpus.
 > > >
 > > > Second, those beasts do not have FEATURE_MCA, but they have FEATURE_MCE,
 > > > so they support the fatal exception, but not the non fatal check.
 > > 
 > > So when I change the above code snippet to:
 > > 
 > > +	if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCE)) {
 > > +		printk(KERN_INFO "CPU%i: No machine check support available\n",
 > > +			smp_processor_id());
 > > +		return;
 > > 
 > > Would this make the whole patch acceptable then?
 > 
 > Yeah, but then we can clean up the extra checks for _MCE in the various 
 > cpu type init functions as well.
 
I question the value of adding the printk.
It's not a failure, there's nothing the user can do about it,
and it adds no real value, just more noise to the dmesg.

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/