Re: [PATCH] x86: x86_{phys,virt}_bits field also for i386 (v2)

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...>, <tglx@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <hpa@...>
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 3:22 am

>>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> 08.09.08 20:54 >>>

No, they look absolutely valid, they're ISA ROM addresses.


We shouldn't fail them, they're valid. What the crash means is that even
addresses below 1Mb are considered out of range, which I can only take
as x86_phys_bits being zero (or a bogus very small number) on
secondary (or all) CPUs. However, looking at the call tree I can't see how
that could happen (provided CPUID doesn't produce garbage output):

- smp_store_cpu_info(), as it always did, pre-initializes the new CPU's
  info with boot_cpu_data, and calls identify_secondary_cpu()
- identify_secondary_cpu() calls identify_cpu()
- identify_cpu() pre-sets x86_phys_bits to 32, and since the field didn't
  exist for 32-bits before, nothing should be able to clear or otherwise
  alter it

Jan

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH] x86: x86_{phys,virt}_bits field also for i386 (v2), Jan Beulich, (Tue Sep 9, 3:22 am)