From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH] HVM vcpu hotplug: Fix acpi method NTFY bug Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:33:17 +0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Liu, Jinsong" , xen-devel Cc: "Jiang, Yunhong" , "Zheng, Shaohui" , "Ke, Liping" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 01/02/2010 03:31, "Liu, Jinsong" wrote: > How about the followed update: > 1. keep original method NTFY, keep decision_tree to reduce scan loop; > 2. update method PRSC > 1). transfer para 'maxvcpus' (comes from config file) from qemu to > mk_dsdt.c through bios_info; > 2). at PRSC, only scan 'maxvcpus' vcpus; > because maxvcpus< 128, no risk for NTFY then. Well, I'm confused now. #2 is really no more than an optimisation, right? And #1 contradicts your original patch, which only affected NTFY, and you claimed was a bug fix. Is there, or is there not, currently a bug in NTFY? Or some bug in the way it is called by PRSC? I mean, if there's no bug, let's leave it alone. At least until 4.0.0 is done. I still haven't been able to understand your original complaints about the current NTFY method by the way -- I still firmly believe it is behaviourally identical to your patched version, for any given pair of arguments passed to it. I could be missing something. If so you're going to have spell it out very slowly and clearly. :-) -- Keir