Thanks. I have a couple of comments, but will otherwise send out a v2
patch later today.
On 11/3/21 4:54 AM, Sami Mujawar wrote:
On 20/09/2021 04:47 PM, Rebecca Cran via groups.io wrote:
+
+ for (Index = 0; Index < NumCpus; Index++) {
+ Status = Mp->GetProcessorInfo (Mp, Index, &CpuInfo);
+ ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
+ if ((CpuInfo.StatusFlag & PROCESSOR_ENABLED_BIT) &&
+ !(CpuInfo.StatusFlag & PROCESSOR_AS_BSP_BIT)) {
+ if (IndexOfEnabledCpuToUse == IndexOfEnabledCpu) {
+ *ProcessorIndex = Index;
+ Status = EFI_SUCCESS;
+ break;
[SAMI] Minor. I think it should be possible to return from here. In
that case the check below if (Index == NumCpus) is not needed and
EFI_NOT_FOUND can be returned at the end of the function.
That's true, but I prefer to avoid returning from within loops like this.
+
+ for (Index = 1; Index < NumCpus; Index++) {
+ Print (L"Switching BSP to Processor %d with EnableOldBSP FALSE...", Index);
+ Status = Mp->SwitchBSP (Mp, Index, FALSE);
[SAMI] The SwitchBsp call can only be performed by the current BSP.
So, I am not sure if this would work in a for loop.
That makes sense. I don't think there's a good way to test this then, so
I'll remove the SwitchBsp tests.
--
Rebecca Cran
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#83282): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/83282
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/85744131/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
