On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:21:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:26:09PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 01:14:29AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > []
> > > It's also a quite ill idea to think about whether gcc might produce a
> > > few bytes more or l
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:26:09PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 01:14:29AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> []
> > It's also a quite ill idea to think about whether gcc might produce a
> > few bytes more or less code at the if when there's such a long printk()
> > in the middle
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 01:14:29AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[]
> It's also a quite ill idea to think about whether gcc might produce a
> few bytes more or less code at the if when there's such a long printk()
> in the middle...
printk() problem was discussed with proper banana userspace replac
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 08:30:11PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>...
> But you are right with the redundant mca and mce variables. They are not
> needed and I will inline the cpu_has() checks into the condition check.
> I'll resubmit tomorrow.
Please don't let Oley bring you away from the right path
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 07:33:17PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> if (!mce_disabled) {
> if (!(c->x86_capability & (X86_FEATURE_MCA | X86_FEATURE_MCE)) {
> printk(KERN_INFO "CPU%i: No machine check support available\n",
> smp_processor_id());
>
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 06:06:05PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > void mcheck_init(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > > {
> > > + uint32_t mca, mce;
> > > +
> > > if (mce_disabled==1)
> > > return;
> > >
> > > + mca = cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCA);
> > > + mce = cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCE);
6 matches
Mail list logo
