Hi Almu,
On 2/24/24 12:24 AM, Almudena Garcia wrote:
> I set the code as this way because it's the standard of Intel's guides.
>
> The guide explain that although most machines turn on the cpu with an unique
> SIPI, some machines could require a second SIPI. Even some older machines
> could
I set the code as this way because it's the standard of Intel's guides.
The guide explain that although most machines turn on the cpu with an unique
SIPI, some machines could require a second SIPI. Even some older machines could
need a INIT IPI before the SIPI.
It's the reason because i wrote
Damien Zammit, le ven. 23 févr. 2024 08:14:53 +, a ecrit:
> Wait for ICR then just assert the signal.
> Linux and NetBSD does it this way, assume they know better.
But also possibly not. IIRC Almudena had good reasons to set the code
this way.
What problem does this actually solve?
Remember
Wait for ICR then just assert the signal.
Linux and NetBSD does it this way, assume they know better.
---
i386/i386/smp.c | 8 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/i386/i386/smp.c b/i386/i386/smp.c
index 05e9de67..a758eea3 100644
--- a/i386/i386/smp.c
+++
