Re: cpuid_t typedef? (was Re: Processor cores not properly detected/activated?)

On 29 May 2014 14:29, John Baldwin <jhb_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:09:05 pm Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> On 29 May 2014 13:18, John Baldwin <jhb_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
>>
>> >> anyway. Besides all of this - I'm thinking of just introducing:
>> >>
>> >> typedef uint32_t cpuid_t;
>> >>
>> >> .. then once we've converted all the users, we can make NOCPU
>> >> something other than 255 (which is the other limiting factor here..)
>> >>
>> >> Any objections?
>> >
>> > This one is a bit harder as you'll have to do shims for kinfo_proc, but
>> > I think this is fine.  You could also just use u_int, but a new foo_t
>> > isn't that bad I guess.
>>
>> I don't think I'd modify any userland-facing ABI/KBI's just yet. I'm
>> just worried that 11.0-REL will come out before we have made a decent
>> inroads into this and we _can't_ support > 254 CPUs.
>
> Eh, that's one of the biggies to do actually.   Kind of pointless to
> update td_oncpu/lastcpu and not fix kinfo_proc at the same time.  You'll
> just have to add new int fields and populate the old ones with sane values
> for CPUs < 255.

Ugh. Ok. I was too deep in the trenches of device drivers and other
ancillary things doing bad things to char/short with cpu ids when
walking things. I totally missed kinfo_proc.

I'll go think about it a bit more.



-a