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

2007-10-12 Thread Christoph Egger
On Thursday 11 October 2007 18:50:12 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)) { + pri

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

2007-10-11 Thread Alan Cox
> 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? I

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

2007-10-11 Thread 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)) { > > > >

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

2007-10-11 Thread Thomas Gleixner
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 > > > > > a

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

2007-10-11 Thread Alan Cox
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:55:36 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Christoph Egger wrote: > > > On Thursday 11 October 2007 15:51:49 Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > > MCG_CAP never reports a negative count of ava

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

2007-10-11 Thread Christoph Egger
On Thursday 11 October 2007 16:55:36 Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Christoph Egger wrote: > > On Thursday 11 October 2007 15:51:49 Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > > MCG_CAP never reports a negative count of available error-reporting > > >

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

2007-10-11 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Christoph Egger wrote: > On Thursday 11 October 2007 15:51:49 Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > MCG_CAP never reports a negative count of available error-reporting > > > banks. Therefore, make nr_mce_banks unsigned. > > > Check for MCA/M

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

2007-10-11 Thread Christoph Egger
On Thursday 11 October 2007 15:51:49 Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > MCG_CAP never reports a negative count of available error-reporting > > banks. Therefore, make nr_mce_banks unsigned. > > Check for MCA/MCE feature bits as early as possible. > > > > + > > +

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

2007-10-11 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Joerg Roedel wrote: > MCG_CAP never reports a negative count of available error-reporting banks. > Therefore, make nr_mce_banks unsigned. > Check for MCA/MCE feature bits as early as possible. > + > + if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCA) || !cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCE)) { > +

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

2007-10-11 Thread Joerg Roedel
MCG_CAP never reports a negative count of available error-reporting banks. Therefore, make nr_mce_banks unsigned. Check for MCA/MCE feature bits as early as possible. Signed-off-by: Christoph Egger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/