On 2014年11月29日 07:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, November 28, 2014 07:05:09 PM Sudeep Holla wrote:
Hi Rafael,
On 26/11/14 22:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:33:04 AM Sudeep Holla wrote:
Hi Hanjun,
On 26/11/14 09:53, Hanjun Guo wrote:
Hi Sudeep,
On 2014-11-25 22:48, Sudeep Holla wrote:
[...]
This patch removes that incorrect comparision in
acpi_processor_hotadd_init as the lone user of this function is
already checking for correctness of phys_id before calling it.
if (apic_id < 0) acpi_handle_debug(pr->handle, "failed to get CPU
APIC ID.\n");
it only check the value and print debug message but no returns, so I
think the check in the following patch is still needed.
Agreed, but that's something we need to fix in the logic and not by
changing these identifiers to signed values in the structures.
I'd rather not change data structures just because of what one funtion returns.
Instead, I'd do something like
#define CPU_PHYS_ID_INVALID (u32)(-1)
change the function in question to return CPU_PHYS_ID_INVALID instead of -1
and change the check to
if (phys_id == CPU_PHYS_ID_INVALID)
...
Do I need to rebase this on top of Hanjun's cleanups to convert apic_id
to phys_id ? Since the variable is getting renamed it will conflict.
Yes, it's better to rebase IMO.
Hi Sudeep, any updates for this patch? I'm working on introducing
typedef u32 phys_cpuid_t for x86 and ia64 for phys_id, and need
this CPU_PHYS_ID_INVALID macro, if you are not working on that, I
will restart the work to address the comments from Lorenzo and
Catalin [1].
[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/3/635
Thanks
Hanjun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
