On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:41:18AM +0800, Liu, Jinsong wrote: > Kevin O'Connor wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:19:13PM +0800, Liu, Jinsong wrote: > >> Avi Kivity wrote: > >>> Very nice. I thought about doing this but abandoned it as > >>> unmaintainable. Using external functions and the ID variable, > >>> however, reduces the mess to tolerable proportions, and gains us a > >>> lot of flexibility. We can now have any combinations of sockets and > >>> installed cpus. > >> > >> Agree, only 1 concern > >> will it bring debugable/ scalable issue by hardcode aml code? > > > > I've updated the patch (see below). This version documents how one > > can build a new version of the Processor() ssdt snippet. > > > > I've tested this under linux - there were a few bugs in the previous > > patch. I also had to replace the dynamically created CPUS array with > > a dynamically created NTFY method - which is a bit more complicated. > > Yeah, thanks Kevin. > After you done patch and draft test, our QA may do nightly test. Hi Jinsong, Have you had any feedback from tests? Thanks, -Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
