>
> + if (!Token->SingleAp) {
>
> + ReleaseSemaphore (&Token->FinishedApCount);
1. If the FinishedApCount is renamed to RunningApCount and
InterlockedDecrement() is called for it.
SingleAp flag is unneeded.
For StartupAllAps(), RunningApCount = mMaxNumberOfCpus - 1;
For StartupThisAps(), RunningApCount = 1;
When RunningApCount == 0, the spinlock is released.
> + if (mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Token != NULL) {
>
> + ReleaseToken (CpuIndex);
2. Can you directly pass in mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Token?
It simplifies the ReleaseToken() and also make people understand that
ReleaseToken() will only modifies the Token but other states in CpuData[Index]
is NOT changed.
>
> @@ -1170,10 +1120,12 @@ CreateToken (
3. With the comment #1, CreateToken() can carry additional parameter which
specifies
the RunningApCount.
> ASSERT (ProcToken != NULL);
>
> ProcToken->Signature = PROCEDURE_TOKEN_SIGNATURE;
>
> ProcToken->ProcedureToken = CpuToken;
4. ProcToken->ProcedureToken looks a bit strange.
Can we use "ProcToken->Spinlock"?
>
> + *Token = (MM_COMPLETION) mSmmMpSyncData-
> >CpuData[CpuIndex].Token->ProcedureToken;
5. It will become
*Token = (MM_COMPLETION) mSmmMpSyncData->CpuData[CpuIndex].Token->Spinlock;
>
> + ReleaseSemaphore (&ProcToken->FinishedApCount);
6. I can now understand why "FinishedApCount is directly compared against
mMaxNumberOfCpus because
the FinishedApCount is already increased for BSP. It's not a comment for code
change.
Thanks,
Ray
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#52445): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/52445
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/68844978/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
