While reworking patch 1 (the only one here that I consider a candidate
for 4.16; see there) I stumbled over quite a few things that have long
been ripe for cleaning up. Hence the tail of 5 further patches ...

1: x2APIC: defer probe until after IOMMU ACPI table parsing
2: APIC: drop clustered_apic_check() hook
3: APIC: drop {acpi_madt,mps}_oem_check() hooks
4: APIC: drop probe_default()
5: APIC: rename cmdline_apic
6: ACPI: drop dead interpreter-related code

Jan

On 05/11/2021 12:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
> While reworking patch 1 (the only one here that I consider a candidate
> for 4.16; see there) I stumbled over quite a few things that have long
> been ripe for cleaning up. Hence the tail of 5 further patches ...
>
> 1: x2APIC: defer probe until after IOMMU ACPI table parsing
> 2: APIC: drop clustered_apic_check() hook
> 3: APIC: drop {acpi_madt,mps}_oem_check() hooks
> 4: APIC: drop probe_default()
> 5: APIC: rename cmdline_apic
> 6: ACPI: drop dead interpreter-related code

Patches 2 thru 6 clean up an area I'd recently stumbled upon.

Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>

Since they clean up a pile of function pointers, I've pulled them into 
x86-next.


Patch 1 is looking very risky at this point, especially given the late 
correction, and I think it would be wise to wait for 4.17.

~Andrew

On 16.11.2021 13:09, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 05/11/2021 12:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> While reworking patch 1 (the only one here that I consider a candidate
>> for 4.16; see there) I stumbled over quite a few things that have long
>> been ripe for cleaning up. Hence the tail of 5 further patches ...
>>
>> 1: x2APIC: defer probe until after IOMMU ACPI table parsing
>> 2: APIC: drop clustered_apic_check() hook
>> 3: APIC: drop {acpi_madt,mps}_oem_check() hooks
>> 4: APIC: drop probe_default()
>> 5: APIC: rename cmdline_apic
>> 6: ACPI: drop dead interpreter-related code
> 
> Patches 2 thru 6 clean up an area I'd recently stumbled upon.
> 
> Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>

Thanks.

> Patch 1 is looking very risky at this point, especially given the late 
> correction, and I think it would be wise to wait for 4.17.

Well, that's also been my takeaway from Ian's responses so far. I did
put a question mark there because I wanted it to be considered without
meaning to actually push for it.

Jan