Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 05 May 2015 21:14:01 +0800 | From | Hanjun Guo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] ACPI / processor: Introduce invalid_phys_cpuid() |
| |
On 2015年05月05日 19:25, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 05/05/15 03:46, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> Introduce invalid_phys_cpuid() to identify cpu with invalid >> physical ID, then used it as replacement of the direct comparisons >> with PHYS_CPUID_INVALID. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> >> --- >> drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 4 ++-- >> drivers/acpi/processor_core.c | 4 ++-- >> include/linux/acpi.h | 5 +++++ >> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c >> b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c >> index 62c846b..92a5f73 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c > > [...] > >> diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h >> index 913b49f..cc82ff3 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/acpi.h >> +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h >> @@ -163,6 +163,11 @@ static inline bool invalid_logical_cpuid(u32 cpuid) >> return (int)cpuid < 0; >> } >> >> +static inline bool invalid_phys_cpuid(phys_cpuid_t phys_id) >> +{ >> + return (int)phys_id < 0; > > Should this be phys_id == PHYS_CPUID_INVALID ? else I don't see why we > need to even define PHYS_CPUID_INVALID
I'm OK with this. For now, CPU phys_id will be valid value or PHYS_CPUID_INVALID in all cases for ACPI processor driver, but I want ask Rafael's opinion on this, is it OK to you too, Rafael?
Thanks Hanjun
| |