RE: [PATCH][2.4] generic cluster APIC support for systems with more than 8 CPUs

["Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>]

I have started working on a similar patch for 2.5. Other thing in my todo list is to
split this patch up into chunks.

Other comments inlined below.

> From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@infradead.org]
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 02:36:20PM -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> >   xAPIC support can actually  be determined from the LAPIC version.
> 
> Are you sure?  IIRC some of the early summit boxens didn't report the
> right versions..
> does this really not break anything in the fragile summit setups?

I am not really sure about the local APIC versions in summit. What I remember seeing on
lkml was summit has older IOAPIC version. Can someone clarify this?

> Okay, this was wrong before, but any chance you could use proper
> style here (i.e. if () 
> Again.

oops.. I somehow missed these 'if' coding style stuff. changing it immediately.

> > +      define_bool CONFIG_X86_CLUSTERED_APIC y
> Do we really need CONFIG_X86_APIC_CLUSTER _and_ CONFIG_X86_CLUSTERED_APIC?

I will also eliminate CONFIG_X86_APIC_CLUSTER and use CONFIG_X86_CLUSTERED_APIC directly.

> 
> -	if (clustered_apic_mode == CLUSTERED_APIC_NUMAQ) {
> +	if (clustered_apic_mode &&
> +		(configured_platform_type == 
> CONFIGURED_PLATFORM_NUMA) ) {
> 
> Doesn;t configured_platform_type == CONFIGURED_PLATFORM_NUMA imply
> clustered_apic_mode?  and it should be at least 
> CONFIGURED_PLATFORM_NUMAQ,
> btw.  Probably better something short like SUBARCH_NUMAQ..

Yes, right now CONFIGURED_PLATFORM_NUMA implies clustered_apic_mode, and one of the 
checks in the above 'if' is redundant. Will do a search and replace of NUMA by NUMAQ.


Thanks,
Venkatesh