>>> On 22.01.16 at 18:03, wrote:
> On 22/01/16 14:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> And then, how is this supposed to work? You only restore defaults,
>> but never write non-default values. Namely, nextd is an unused
>> function parameter ...
>>
>> Also I guess my comment about addi
On 22/01/16 14:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> And then, how is this supposed to work? You only restore defaults,
> but never write non-default values. Namely, nextd is an unused
> function parameter ...
>
> Also I guess my comment about adding unused code needs
> repeating here.
>>> On 22.01.16 at 14:59, wrote:
> On 22/01/16 11:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.01.16 at 12:01, wrote:
>>> On 22/01/16 09:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 16.12.15 at 22:24, wrote:
> +expected_levelling_cap, levelling_caps,
> +(expected_levelling_cap ^ levelling_cap
On 22/01/16 11:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.01.16 at 12:01, wrote:
>> On 22/01/16 09:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.12.15 at 22:24, wrote:
+ expected_levelling_cap, levelling_caps,
+ (expected_levelling_cap ^ levelling_caps) & levelling_caps);
+ printk(XE
>>> On 22.01.16 at 12:01, wrote:
> On 22/01/16 09:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.12.15 at 22:24, wrote:
>>> + expected_levelling_cap, levelling_caps,
>>> + (expected_levelling_cap ^ levelling_caps) & levelling_caps);
>>> + printk(XENLOG_WARNING "Fam %#x, model %#x level %#
On 22/01/16 09:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.12.15 at 22:24, wrote:
>> This patch is best reviewed as its end result rather than as a diff, as it
>> rewrites almost all of the setup.
> This, I think, doesn't belong in the commit message itself.
Why not? It applies equally to anyone reading th
>>> On 16.12.15 at 22:24, wrote:
> This patch is best reviewed as its end result rather than as a diff, as it
> rewrites almost all of the setup.
This, I think, doesn't belong in the commit message itself.
> @@ -126,126 +133,172 @@ static const struct cpuidmask *__init noinline
> get_cpuidmask(
