Re: 256 apic id for amd64

[Siddha, Suresh B]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 04:42:41PM -0800, James Cleverdon wrote:
> Personally, I don't have any problem with replacing the non-power-of-2 
> code with "hweight32(c->x86_num_cores - 1)", but folks at Intel have 
> been very insistent that it may be needed in the future.  Maybe Suresh 
> can speak up about Intel's interests here.

IA32 SDM vol3 section 7.7.5 talks about the recommended way of computing
physical processor package id. Current kernel code which is doing this, 
can definitely be made more readable. I will do that when ever I get
a chance.

thanks,
suresh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/