On 12.03.2024 16:18, Krystian Hebel wrote: > On 7.02.2024 17:28, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 14.11.2023 18:49, Krystian Hebel wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/apic.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/apic.c >>> @@ -950,7 +950,7 @@ __next: >>> */ >>> if (boot_cpu_physical_apicid == -1U) >>> boot_cpu_physical_apicid = get_apic_id(); >>> - x86_cpu_to_apicid[0] = get_apic_id(); >>> + cpu_physical_id(0) = get_apic_id(); >> While personally I don't mind as much, I expect Andrew would not like >> this: Something that looks like a function call on the lhs is against >> what normal language structure would be. > This made me cringe as well, but I've seen something like this used in > other places (per_cpu() mostly) so I thought it was OK. I can change it.
Please try to get in touch with Andrew, to see what he thinks (especially with your pointing of per_cpu()'s similarity). Jan
