Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Protasevich, Natalie" <> | Subject | RE: APIC version | Date | Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:49:16 -0600 |
| |
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/
|  |