From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/apic] x86/acpi: Introduce persistent storage for cpuid
 <-> apicid mapping
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 13:22:56 +0800
Message-ID: <8c52c038-3c7d-748f-d4d0-fa021f6530dc@cn.fujitsu.com>
References: <1472114120-3281-4-git-send-email-douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <tip-8f54969dc8d6704632b42cbb5e47730cd75cc713@git.kernel.org>
 <CAE9FiQVQx6FRXT-RdR7Crz4dg5LeUWHcUSy1KacjR+JgU_vGJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610041258410.7712@nanos>
 <CAE9FiQWigWvrZ8JzNDKtZ9FWARh2m0kGoF+VOZdwAdY9vnU3_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4608f474-c49e-550b-90e2-c5f4c25e00f5@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <CAE9FiQVEvoK=TvYyhU6iiLh5FiX3pXXyy53tr2F7BEnRxGk7HA@mail.gmail.com>
 <e53a9807-2beb-0878-87dc-cc6f93b7c911@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610071448590.19804@nanos>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610071455360.19804@nanos>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:53522 "EHLO
        heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S934857AbcJHFXE (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>); Sat, 8 Oct 2016 01:23:04 -0400
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610071455360.19804@nanos>
Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, "linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, "lenb@kernel.org" <lenb@kernel.org>, "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@intel.com>, robert.moore@intel.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org

Hi tglx,

At 10/07/2016 09:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner 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.

Yes, I see.

>
> 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.

It seems the kernel uses the flags in this sentence:

	enabled = processor->lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED;


>
> 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.

Yes, I will do it.


Thanks

	Dou.