From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nuno Silva <nuno.silva@vgertech.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Partial workaround for probs with 3ware Controller
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 02:45:18 +0100
Sender: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <411D6EAE.6070104@vgertech.com>
References: <E1BvmOm-0007ZS-00@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <E1BvmOm-0007ZS-00@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Errors-To: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=xen-devel>
To: Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: sven.kretzschmar@gmx.de, xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Ian Pratt wrote:
>>Can xen hackers confirm if the acpi code is up-to-date?
> 
> The current acpi/apic code is around 2.4.22 vintage, which is
> after most of the nasty bios table parsing problems.
> 
> It probably wouldn't hurt to freshen it, though. 
> 
> Any volunteers?

Not me. I can't (won't) ruin a good project like xen :-)
(ehehehehe)

Anyway, maybe if all the cpus are detected the current code will work 
(an upgrade is still the better way...).

Just edit xeno-unstable.bk/xen/include/asm-x86/config.h and change:
"#define NR_CPUS 16" to
"#define NR_CPUS 160".

This will waste some memory for some structs but it shouldn't hurt, YMMV.

Doing a diff from mpparse.c in xen and 2.6 demonstrates that the method 
to find if the processor is invalid or not has changed:
@@ -987,7 +836,7 @@
         struct mpc_config_processor processor;
         int                     boot_cpu = 0;
-       if (id >= MAX_APICS) {
+       if (MAX_APICS - id <= 0) {
                 printk(KERN_WARNING "Processor #%d invalid (max %d)\n",
                         id, MAX_APICS);
                 return;

Also, 2.6 acpi code works better in some boxen. Maybe because it's more 
bleeding edge?

Regards,
Nuno Silva




-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285