[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y1iwnt34.ffs@tglx>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:50:07 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
Peter Keresztes Schmidt <peter@...esztesschmidt.de>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 16/58] x86/apic: Sanitize num_processors handling
On Mon, Jul 31 2023 at 12:17, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 24.07.23 15:34, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> This is introducing a regression for Xen PV guests: those have no ACPI
> tables, so smp_found_config will be 0. OTOH num_processors has been set
> already using hypervisor data, so setting num_processors to 1 here will
> overwrite the previous setting.
>
> Below diff on top is fixing the problem:
Fixing? You can't be serious about that.
Why can't XENPV pretend that it has a smp configuration detected,
i.e. setting smp_found_config as any other special get_smp_config()
implementation does?
XENPV is already a major pain to deal with. No need to expand the
related insanity all over the place.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists