Re: [PATCH] x86: simplify mtrr_bp_init()

2012-07-26 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 25.07.12 at 18:57, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > On 07/25/2012 12:59 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> >>> should drop all phys_addr assignment in this function. >>> >>> x86_phys_bits should have all correct value? >> >> Is it certain that all special cases (setting phys_addr to 32) are >> covered by

Re: [PATCH] x86: simplify mtrr_bp_init()

2012-07-25 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 07/25/2012 12:59 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: should drop all phys_addr assignment in this function. x86_phys_bits should have all correct value? Is it certain that all special cases (setting phys_addr to 32) are covered by those CPUs not having PAE/PSE36? One would think that this is valid to i

Re: [PATCH] x86: simplify mtrr_bp_init()

2012-07-25 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 07.07.12 at 00:02, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Now that the x86_phys_bits cpuinfo field is uniformly available on >> 32- and 64-bit, the function no longer needs to determine this anew. >> >> Additionally, both size_or_mask and size_and_mask ca

Re: [PATCH] x86: simplify mtrr_bp_init()

2012-07-06 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > Now that the x86_phys_bits cpuinfo field is uniformly available on > 32- and 64-bit, the function no longer needs to determine this anew. > > Additionally, both size_or_mask and size_and_mask can be set once at > the end of the function instead