[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86: remove X86_INTEL_USERCOPY code
On 30/08/13 03:14, Matt Wilson wrote: > Nothing defines CONFIG_X86_INTEL_USERCOPY, and as far as I can tell it > was never used even when Xen supported 32-bit x86. > > Signed-off-by: Matt Wilson <msw@xxxxxxxxxx> And furthermore, turning it on would appear to result in a compile error as movsl_mask doesn't appear to exist anywhere, certainly nowhere I can find in the current tree. Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > xen/arch/x86/cpu/intel.c | 21 --------------------- > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/intel.c b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/intel.c > index 9b71d36..072ecbc 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/intel.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/intel.c > @@ -18,13 +18,6 @@ > > #define select_idle_routine(x) ((void)0) > > -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_INTEL_USERCOPY > -/* > - * Alignment at which movsl is preferred for bulk memory copies. > - */ > -struct movsl_mask movsl_mask __read_mostly; > -#endif > - > static unsigned int probe_intel_cpuid_faulting(void) > { > uint64_t x; > @@ -229,20 +222,6 @@ static void __devinit init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) > /* Work around errata */ > Intel_errata_workarounds(c); > > -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_INTEL_USERCOPY > - /* > - * Set up the preferred alignment for movsl bulk memory moves > - */ > - switch (c->x86) { > - case 6: /* PII/PIII only like movsl with 8-byte alignment */ > - movsl_mask.mask = 7; > - break; > - case 15: /* P4 is OK down to 8-byte alignment */ > - movsl_mask.mask = 7; > - break; > - } > -#endif > - > if ((c->x86 == 0xf && c->x86_model >= 0x03) || > (c->x86 == 0x6 && c->x86_model >= 0x0e)) > set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, c->x86_capability); _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |