If you index it by 4-bit GET_APIC_ID() (not GET_APIC_LOGICAL_ID()), i.e. hard_smp_processor_id(), you can get away with it. Of course, it is possible that it can just be "don't care": >I don't think the array apic_version[] is very helpful in the first place. >I suspect it can be __init. >Jun On the other hand, it might be needed if imagine hot plug CPU case. --Natalie -----Original Message----- From: Martin J. Bligh [mailto:mbligh _at_ aracnet.com] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 4:23 PM To: Zwane Mwaikambo; Nakajima, Jun Cc: Protasevich, Natalie; Pallipadi, Venkatesh; William Lee Irwin III; Christoph Hellwig; James Cleverdon; Linux Kernel Subject: RE: APIC version >> The entries in acpi_version[] are indexed by the APIC id, not >> smp_processor_id(). So you can overwrite acpi_version[] for a different >> processor. > > Is it possible to use smp_processor_id instead to avoid wasting memory > for the sparse APIC id case? No, the array is set up in mpparse.c before we know the real processor numbers. M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
- RE: APIC versionMartin J. Bligh
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.5.57 missing isapnp_card_protocol
- Next by Date: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
- Previous by thread: RE: APIC version
- Next by thread: RE: APIC version
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]