Kevin O'Connor wrote: > 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 Oh, I misunderstand. I originally thought our QA will test after your patch send to upstream, so we wait for it :) I will talk with our QA this week to arrange test for it. Thanks, Jinsong-- 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
