From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: RE: [PATCH 1/2] Vcpu hotplug: Move ACPI processor from \_PR to \_SB Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:30:56 +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: "Jiang, Yunhong" , "Liu, Jinsong" , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 12/02/2010 09:25, "Jiang, Yunhong" wrote: >> I'd be a bit more comfortable if we had the cover of lots of other modern >> systems putting their processor objects under \_SB, but actually I've never >> seen one. Then again I haven't been looking at high-end systems supporting >> CPU hotplug and the like. > > Yes. I only saw \_SB definition in system supporting CPU hotplug. In fact, in > that system, the processor is defined under an container object in \_SB. As > currently all system in our lab is shutdown for CNY, I can't find more system > to check. And I suspect that we need care \_PR soluation, legacy OS support is > an important usage model for virtualization. > > One thing I noticed in my system is, there is a ACPI version option in my > desktop system, and I remember I saw that option in other system also. So one > possible solution is, place all processor definition under a seperated SSDT > file. An option is provided so that build.c can select different SSDT based on > user's input. But that make thing tricky still. You can see that xen-unstable tip can do this now. But I don't want to start dumping in loads of alternative DSDTs, as each one is a fair size. What I'm hoping is that this Linux regression is fixed fairly swiftly, and we can hence ignore it. :-) If not, we can think about what to do. -- Keir