Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:36:46 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Rafal Jaworowski <raj@semihalf.com> Cc: powerpc@freebsd.org, Zbyszek Bodek <zbb@semihalf.com>, =?utf-8?Q?Piotr_Zi=C4=99cik?= <kosmo@semihalf.com> Subject: Re: RFC: OpenPIC IPI patch Message-ID: <251AF144-587C-4854-88B2-0CD7D26E1DF1@xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <0362C399-CB54-451E-A879-E836EF13CE72@semihalf.com> References: <0362C399-CB54-451E-A879-E836EF13CE72@semihalf.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 30, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Rafal Jaworowski wrote: > Can you please have a look at this patch and let us know about any = comments / objections? We identified a problem with IPI on the recent = FSL eOpenPIC, description in the patch: >=20 > http://people.freebsd.org/~raj/patches/powerpc/openpic.diff Looks good. Please consider adding some checks to openpic_ipi() where we peek into the cpuset_t type and access the "bits". An assert would be nice if the set contains cpus number 32 or up. This to make it painfully obvious that it's time to extend openpic_ipi() to handle more than 32 CPUs if and when the need arises. FYI, --=20 Marcel Moolenaar marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?251AF144-587C-4854-88B2-0CD7D26E1DF1>