From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] libxc: remove CPUID core information mangling Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:00:22 +0100 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: "Huang2, Wei" , "Przywara, Andre" , Nitin Kamble Cc: xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ah yes, I agree. On 25/08/2010 16:53, "Huang2, Wei" wrote: > OK. BTW, the old way seems wrong. The correct implementation should be > (((regs[2] & 0xf000u) >> 12) + 1) << 12. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:39 AM > To: Huang2, Wei; Przywara, Andre; Nitin Kamble > Cc: xen-devel > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] libxc: remove CPUID core information > mangling > > I meant it should remain the old way, since HVM virtual APIC IDs are > vcpu_id*2. > > -- Keir > > On 25/08/2010 16:28, "Huang2, Wei" wrote: > >> Hi Keir, >> >> Do you mean that we should leave 80000008:ECX[15:12] as zero or in old way >> (i.e. (regs[2] & 0xf000u) + 1))? These bits can't be zero, unless we want to >> use legacy method in multi-core calculation. >> >> -Wei >> >> ======== >> I think you shouldn't change handling of 80000008:ECX[15:12] since that does >> explicitly refer to APIC ID arrangement. The rest of your changes could be >> correct as far as I can tell from the reference manuals. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-devel mailing list >> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >> >> > > > >