Re: [PATCH 15/15] x86: Disabling x2apic if nox2apic is specified

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Sunday, October 24, 2010 - 3:15 am

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Yinghai Lu wrote:


Can you please use a sensible variable name like  x2apic_disabled ?


That comment is useless. I wish you would add comments to complex code
not to obvious one.

Also it can be folded into the above check

     if (!cpu_has_x2apic || x2apic_disabled)
     	



Why is this removed ?


Do we really need all these extra checks ? Can't we simply make all
this one variable wich is set to 1 when x2apic is available and not
disabled on the kernel command line ?


Why conditional? No need to duplicate the printk. It just needs some
thought.

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

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 00/15] x86: APIC related clean up, Yinghai Lu, (Sat Oct 23, 6:02 pm)
Re: [PATCH 04/15] x86, apic: Remove early_init_lapic_mapping, Thomas Gleixner, (Sun Oct 24, 2:53 am)
Re: [PATCH 07/15] x86, sfi: Use smp_register_lapic_address(), Thomas Gleixner, (Sun Oct 24, 2:56 am)
Re: [PATCH 15/15] x86: Disabling x2apic if nox2apic is spe ..., Thomas Gleixner, (Sun Oct 24, 3:15 am)