On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 09:02:19PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 1.09.23 г. 20:30 ч., Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 01:39:46AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Initializing the FPU during the early boot process is a pointless
> > > exercise. Early boot
On 9/1/23 11:00, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 1.09.23 г. 20:30 ч., Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 01:39:46AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Initializing the FPU during the early boot process is a pointless
exercise. Early boot is convoluted and fragile enough.
Nothing requires
On 1.09.23 г. 20:30 ч., Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 01:39:46AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Initializing the FPU during the early boot process is a pointless
exercise. Early boot is convoluted and fragile enough.
Nothing requires that the FPU is set up early. It has to
On 1.09.23 г. 20:30 ч., Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 01:39:46AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Initializing the FPU during the early boot process is a pointless
exercise. Early boot is convoluted and fragile enough.
Nothing requires that the FPU is set up early. It has to
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 01:39:46AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Initializing the FPU during the early boot process is a pointless
> exercise. Early boot is convoluted and fragile enough.
>
> Nothing requires that the FPU is set up early. It has to be initialized
> before fork_init() becaus
On Tue, Jun 13 2023 at 22:03, Chang S. Bae wrote:
> On 6/13/2023 4:39 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> @@ -2396,6 +2393,13 @@ void __init arch_cpu_finalize_init(void)
>> '0' + (boot_cpu_data.x86 > 6 ? 6 : boot_cpu_data.x86);
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Must be bef
On 6/13/2023 4:39 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
@@ -2396,6 +2393,13 @@ void __init arch_cpu_finalize_init(void)
'0' + (boot_cpu_data.x86 > 6 ? 6 : boot_cpu_data.x86);
}
+ /*
+* Must be before alternatives because it might set or clear
+* feature
