>>> On 22.01.16 at 15:09, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 22/01/16 09:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 16.12.15 at 22:24, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -183,22 +237,13 @@ static void early_init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>>> (boot_cpu_data.x86_mask == 3 || boot_cpu_data.x86_mask == 4))
>>> paddr_bits = 36;
>>>
>>> - if (c == &boot_cpu_data && c->x86 == 6) {
>>> - if (probe_intel_cpuid_faulting())
>>> - __set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CPUID_FAULTING,
>>> - c->x86_capability);
>>> - } else if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CPUID_FAULTING)) {
>>> - BUG_ON(!probe_intel_cpuid_faulting());
>>> - __set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CPUID_FAULTING, c->x86_capability);
>>> - }
>>> + if (c == &boot_cpu_data)
>>> + intel_init_levelling();
>>> +
>>> + if (test_bit(X86_FEATURE_CPUID_FAULTING, boot_cpu_data.x86_capability))
>>> + __set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CPUID_FAULTING, c->x86_capability);
>> So you intentionally delete the validation of CPUID faulting being
>> available on APs?
>
> Yes. All this does is change where Xen crashes, in the case that AP's
> have different capabilities to the BSP, and allows more startup code to
> move into __init.
So where did that Xen crash point move to (since I didn't spot it)?
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
