Re: [PATCH] x86: Put the num_processors++ code in a more suitable position

2016-09-06 Thread Dou Liyang
Hi David, At 09/07/2016 05:23 AM, David Rientjes wrote: On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Dou Liyang wrote: This is a code optimization. Not sure that it's optimization, it's just for correctness. Yes, I see. I will improve it in next version. Thanks, Dou If checking the topology package map of ap

Re: [PATCH] x86: Put the num_processors++ code in a more suitable position

2016-09-06 Thread David Rientjes
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Dou Liyang wrote: > This is a code optimization. > Not sure that it's optimization, it's just for correctness. > If checking the topology package map of apicid and cpu is failure, > it will stop generating the processor info for that apicid and the > disabled_cpus will plus

[PATCH] x86: Put the num_processors++ code in a more suitable position

2016-09-05 Thread Dou Liyang
This is a code optimization. If checking the topology package map of apicid and cpu is failure, it will stop generating the processor info for that apicid and the disabled_cpus will plus one. However, the num-processors has already been added one above. That may cause the number of processors inco