lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: APIC version
Date
If you index it by 4-bit GET_APIC_ID() (not GET_APIC_LOGICAL_ID()), i.e.
hard_smp_processor_id(), you can get away with it.

Of course, it is possible that it can just be "don't care":

>I don't think the array apic_version[] is very helpful in the first place.
>I suspect it can be __init.

>Jun

On the other hand, it might be needed if imagine hot plug CPU case.


--Natalie



-----Original Message-----
From: Martin J. Bligh [mailto:mbligh@aracnet.com]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 4:23 PM
To: Zwane Mwaikambo; Nakajima, Jun
Cc: Protasevich, Natalie; Pallipadi, Venkatesh; William Lee Irwin III;
Christoph Hellwig; James Cleverdon; Linux Kernel
Subject: RE: APIC version


>> The entries in acpi_version[] are indexed by the APIC id, not
>> smp_processor_id(). So you can overwrite acpi_version[] for a different
>> processor.
>
> Is it possible to use smp_processor_id instead to avoid wasting memory
> for the sparse APIC id case?

No, the array is set up in mpparse.c before we know the real processor
numbers.

M.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.023 / U:1.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site