Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH V3 2/3] Tool/ACPI: DSDT extension to support more vcpus

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 19.09.17 at 15:48, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 07:44:21AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 19.09.17 at 15:29, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:52:48AM -0400, Lan Tianyu wrote:
>> >> +        if ( apic_id > 254 )
>> > 
>> > 255? An APIC ID of 255 should still be fine.
>> 
>> Wasn't it you who (validly) asked for the boundary to be 254, due
>> to 0xff being the broadcast value?
> 
> But that's the ACPI ID, not the APIC ID.

The code above says "apic_id" - is the variable mis-named? Or am
I reading your reply the wrong way round, in which case the question
would be why an ACPI ID could ever express something like
"broadcast"?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel