>>> On 08.07.15 at 17:11, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 13:38 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 08.07.15 at 11:36, <chao.p.p...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > @@ -84,11 +85,21 @@ void *stack_base[NR_CPUS];
>> > static void smp_store_cpu_info(int id)
>> > {
>> > struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = cpu_data + id;
>> > + unsigned int socket;
>> >
>> > *c = boot_cpu_data;
>> > if ( id != 0 )
>> > + {
>> > identify_cpu(c);
>> >
>> > + socket = cpu_to_socket(id);
>> > + if ( !socket_cpumask[socket] )
>> > + {
>> > + socket_cpumask[socket] = secondary_socket_cpumask;
>> > + secondary_socket_cpumask = NULL;
>>
>> I don't think this will build with small enough NR_CPUS.
>>
> And it *does* *not* fix the issue on my box.
I.e. bad analysis (albeit it seemed correct to me) _and_ new code
not tested. Chao, one more try, or we'll have to revert the whole
series (closing the window for it for 4.6).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
