Thanks for the comments. The code has been updated in the V2 patch set. Thanks, Dun
-----Original Message----- From: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 9:56 PM To: Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io; Tan, Dun <dun....@intel.com> Cc: Kumar, Rahul R <rahul.r.ku...@intel.com>; Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com>; Xu, Min M <min.m...@intel.com> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 2/2] UefiCpuPkg: Check lower 24 bits of ProcessorNumber On 1/5/24 13:55, Ni, Ray wrote: >>> - if (ProcessorNumber != 0) { >>> + // >>> + // Lower 24 bits contains the actual processor number. >>> + // >>> + if ((ProcessorNumber & (CPU_V2_EXTENDED_TOPOLOGY - 1)) != 0) { > I suggest we explicitly use BIT24 instead of CPU_V2_EXTENDED_TOPOLOGY. > Using BIT24 clearly tells that processor number only occupies the lower 24 > bits. Yes, I've noticed this discrepancy too; I agree BIT24 is clearer here! > > >>> return EFI_NOT_FOUND; >>> } >>> >> >> Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#113352): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/113352 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/103518743/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-