From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753319AbZCKIqQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:46:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752130AbZCKIqA (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:46:00 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.157]:30978 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751567AbZCKIp6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:45:58 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=sJHk9vTzyJ+EBw8CELo0XMh4FXD9qoKLQr8nWSDcEFqPrSUIBB6VeNQ0J+HiSeeQKQ PQvNxHJ1uTZ+xoXIP071KZtVyd60yBhMCREqkAfhjnd/GRPiGzdN+Dd3US4YsSvcZwmo +kk5cawHdrRjEho9dyJ9ssvXRDQY4scYXDD/4= Message-ID: <49B77A42.5060106@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:45:54 +0100 From: Jiri Slaby User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090223 SUSE/3.0b2-3.1 Thunderbird/3.0b2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , yinghai@kernel.org, andi@firstfloor.org Subject: cpu_mask_to_apicid: Not a valid mask! [was: x86_32: summit_32, use BAD_APICID] References: <20090224175518.GA15616@elte.hu> <1235508093-18063-1-git-send-email-jirislaby@gmail.com> <49A524D3.3090408@gmail.com> <20090225111002.GA15453@elte.hu> <49A71105.4050001@gmail.com> <20090228082120.GA11425@elte.hu> <49B3F9A5.4060506@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49B3F9A5.4060506@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Adding Yinghai and Andi to CCs, maybe they can help? And changing subject. On 8.3.2009 18:00, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 28.2.2009 09:21, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> I've sent 4 more patches, but there are still issues: >>> * es7000 + summit: I haven't solved calling with all bits set (only all >>> online is sufficient to trigger this). Some of the processors needn't be >>> on the same apic cluster. It will scream now (again -- it did before >>> adding the "optimisation"). Actually I don't know how to solve this. How >>> the caller would know the correct mask, ANDing with a apic->target_cpus >>> retval? > > Anybody, please? This is not a theoretical issue, this is a real problem > we hit...