>>> On 22.01.16 at 15:46, wrote:
> On 22/01/16 14:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.01.16 at 15:09, wrote:
>>> On 22/01/16 09:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 16.12.15 at 22:24, wrote:
> @@ -183,22 +237,13 @@ static void early_init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> (boot_cpu_data.x8
On 22/01/16 14:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.01.16 at 15:09, wrote:
>> On 22/01/16 09:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.12.15 at 22:24, 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 ==
>>> On 22.01.16 at 15:09, wrote:
> On 22/01/16 09:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.12.15 at 22:24, 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;
>>>
On 22/01/16 09:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.12.15 at 22:24, wrote:
>> +if (msr_basic)
>> +__probe_mask_msr(&msr_basic, LCAP_1cd, &cpumask_defaults._1cd);
>> +
>> +if (msr_ext)
>> +__probe_mask_msr(&msr_ext, LCAP_e1cd, &cpumask_defaults.e1cd);
>> +
>> +if (m
>>> On 16.12.15 at 22:24, wrote:
> + if (msr_basic)
> + __probe_mask_msr(&msr_basic, LCAP_1cd, &cpumask_defaults._1cd);
> +
> + if (msr_ext)
> + __probe_mask_msr(&msr_ext, LCAP_e1cd, &cpumask_defaults.e1cd);
> +
> + if (msr_xsave)
> + __probe_mask_ms
This patch is best reviewed as its end result rather than as a diff, as it
rewrites almost all of the setup.
On the BSP, cpuid information is used to evaluate the potential available set
of masking MSRs, and they are unconditionally probed, filling in the
availability information and hardware defa
