Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Oct 2012 20:08:59 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] RFC: Fix AMD Northbridge-ID contiguity assumptions |
| |
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 08:50:51AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 10/03/2012 08:30 AM, Daniel Blueman wrote: > > > > > > Is that "on NumaScale systems"? If so, please say so rather than trying > > > to make it sound generic; if it is not, can you give some other examples? > > > >It is for Numascale (NumaChip) systems for our purposes. > > > >Any other systems which interconnect Opterons via address space routing > >(needed for >8 HT nodes) will get this benefit. I can't put my hand to > >exactly what is out there, but can find out. > > > > The reason I'm asking is because it is an important bit of the > record of the code to know if this is a specific need or a general > need. This may be obvious now, but 5-10 years from now someone will > need to know why or what. > > The two paragraphs above is exactly what is needed, i.e. "NumaChip > or any other design which shares these specific design features: > ..."
Absolutely!
And it would be best to put that explanation in the code somewhere around node_to_amd_index() so that it is there at a first glance.
Btw, I'll review the patch tomorrow since it is a holiday today here.
I have only two nits for now:
* node is u32, do you really have such big systems with 2^32-1 nodes? Or can the max node number fit into a, say, u16 or u8?
* node_to_amd_index returns 0 in the unsuccessful case but node index 0 seems ok to me, i.e. the first element in the array of northbridges. It probably should return a negative value rather to signal a failure...
Thanks.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach GM: Alberto Bozzo Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
| |