On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Dou Liyang wrote: >> > Is it possible that the "-1/oxffffffff" could appear in the MADT which is one >> > of the ACPI tables? >> >> According to the SDM the x2apic id is a 32bit ID, so 0xffffffff is a >> legitimate value. > > The ACPI spec says that bit 0 of the x2apic flags field tells whether the > logical processor is present or not. So the proper check for x2apic is that > flag. > > The lapic structure has the same flag, but the kernel ignores the flags for > both lapic and x2apic. > > I'm going to apply the minimal fix of checking for id == 0xff in > acpi_lapic_parse() for now, but this needs to be revisited and fixed > proper. Good to me. Thanks for fixing it. Yinghai -- 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
