Re: [PATCH] x86: fix section mismatch in LAPIC initialization
From: Jan Beulich
Date: Tue Jan 04 2011 - 03:42:23 EST
>>> On 03.01.11 at 19:29, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 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?
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/