On 11/06/2015 02:12, Olaf Hering wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, Julien Grall wrote:
There is also a variable MAX_CPUS defined to 256. which is used every.
You are right, while forwarding an old patch (from memory) I changed the
wrong place. MAX_CPUS is already at 256 so no change is strictly
neccessary.
I suggest to drop that patch from this series while applying.
Thanks for the review.
I would suggest some refactoring to remove NR_CPUS and associated code
in order to avoid mis-usage later.
Also, cpu_mask_t is a uint32_t, is it intentional?
Regards,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
