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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
