From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laszlo Ersek Subject: Re: Re: [xen-unstable test] 8803: regressions - FAIL Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:55:01 +0200 Message-ID: <4E5FD505.8020504@redhat.com> References: <20063.45421.271505.189374@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <1314894926.28989.146.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1314894926.28989.146.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Campbell Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 09/01/11 18:35, Ian Campbell wrote: > diff -r bb97bd46df6c -r 4309ff953500 xen/include/asm-x86/config.h > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/config.h Thu Sep 01 16:03:21 2011 +0100 > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/config.h Thu Sep 01 17:34:41 2011 +0100 > @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ > > #ifdef MAX_PHYS_CPUS > #define NR_CPUS MAX_PHYS_CPUS > +#elif defined __i386__ > +#define NR_CPUS 128 > #else > #define NR_CPUS 256 > #endif Ah, sorry. This special-casing / after-the-fact #error for 32-bit is actually there in the RHEL-5 fork, and there I bumped only the x86_64 default (the 32-bit one is set to 32). When I looked at the upstream source, I noticed only a single case (set to 128), and I figured upstream either makes the 32/64 distinction by different means, or they support 128 PCPUs on 32-bit too, and 128 being >> than 32, I thought 256 should be fine as well. I was wrong, sorry for wasting your time. lacos