Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 17:29:33 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Jia-Shiun Li <jiashiun@gmail.com>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, Tim Bishop <tim-lists@bishnet.net> Subject: Re: cpuid_t typedef? (was Re: Processor cores not properly detected/activated?) Message-ID: <201405291729.33471.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmokC9Nr06r9B=R59_uRH6fBU0n9vCy79Mj7X0bjewZVo1A@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-VmonhjQZGhxTjgJA5a3Cyu%2Bx7HCmuK1MDoLQtdpHJ4wR-FA@mail.gmail.com> <201405291618.55058.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAJ-VmokC9Nr06r9B=R59_uRH6fBU0n9vCy79Mj7X0bjewZVo1A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:09:05 pm Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 29 May 2014 13:18, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > >> anyway. Besides all of this - I'm thinking of just introducing: > >> > >> typedef uint32_t cpuid_t; > >> > >> .. then once we've converted all the users, we can make NOCPU > >> something other than 255 (which is the other limiting factor here..) > >> > >> Any objections? > > > > This one is a bit harder as you'll have to do shims for kinfo_proc, but > > I think this is fine. You could also just use u_int, but a new foo_t > > isn't that bad I guess. > > I don't think I'd modify any userland-facing ABI/KBI's just yet. I'm > just worried that 11.0-REL will come out before we have made a decent > inroads into this and we _can't_ support > 254 CPUs. Eh, that's one of the biggies to do actually. Kind of pointless to update td_oncpu/lastcpu and not fix kinfo_proc at the same time. You'll just have to add new int fields and populate the old ones with sane values for CPUs < 255. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201405291729.33471.jhb>