From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932777AbcHKIhx (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2016 04:37:53 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:35911 "EHLO mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932297AbcHKIhs (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2016 04:37:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 10:37:43 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Baoquan He Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [Patch v3 2/2] x86/acpi: Remove the repeated lapic address override entry parsing Message-ID: <20160811083742.GA3645@gmail.com> References: <1469877001-18393-1-git-send-email-bhe@redhat.com> <1469877001-18393-2-git-send-email-bhe@redhat.com> <20160810140257.GB22965@gmail.com> <20160810141340.GA5477@x1.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160810141340.GA5477@x1.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Baoquan He wrote: > On 08/10/16 at 04:02pm, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Baoquan He wrote: > > > > > ACPI MADT has a 32-bit field providing lapic address at which > > > each processor can access its lapic information. MADT also contains > > > an optional entry to provide a 64-bit address to override the 32-bit > > > one. However the current code does the lapic address override entry > > > parsing twice. One is in early_acpi_boot_init() because AMD NUMA need > > > get boot_cpu_id earlier. The other is in acpi_boot_init() which parses > > > all MADT entries. > > > > > > So in this patch remove the repeated code in the 2nd part. Meanwhile > > > print lapic override entry information like other MADT entry, this > > > will be added to boot log. > > > > it is not at all clear to me from this changelog whether the change is supposed to > > change anything. If not then please spell it out explicitly: > > > > "This patch is not supposed to change any behavior." > > I don't know if adding new information to boot log can be seen as > behavior change. If lapic override entry exist, the code change will > add one line of message to boot log: > > LAPIC_ADDR_OVR (address[0xXXXXXXXX]) > > If this is not behavior change, I will add the sentence you suggested. Yeah, you can write it: "This patch is not supposed to change any runtime behavior, other than improving kernel messages." Thanks, Ingo