+	if (pr->id == -1) {
+		int device_declaration;
+		int apic_id = -1;
+
+		if (!strcmp(acpi_device_hid(device), ACPI_PROCESSOR_OBJECT_HID))
+			device_declaration = 0;
+		else
+			device_declaration = 1;
+
+		apic_id = acpi_get_cpuid(pr->handle,
+			device_declaration, pr->acpi_id);
+		if (apic_id == -1) {
+			/* Processor is not present in MADT table */

So I was struggling to find an easy way to make the cases below (where
VCPU != physical CPU) work with using the driver that iterates over the
'processor' and was mystified to why it would not work, even with this
patchset. Found out that the acpi_get_cpuid does this:


201 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
202         for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
203                 if (cpu_physical_id(i) == apic_id)
204                         return i;
205         }

and since not-online vCPUs (so dom0_max_vcpus) are not in the "possible"
bitmask, we never get to check line 203 and end up returning -1 for
offline/not-present/not-possible vCPUs.

Which means that we end up here:

+			return 0;
+		}
+

instead of going through the pr->id = 0.

By the end of this, the information that the hypervisor gets is
actually limited to the amount of CPUs that we specified in dom0_max_vcpus=

+		/*
+		 * It's possible to have pr->id as '-1' even when it's actually
+		 * present in MADT table, e.g. due to limiting dom0 max vcpus
+		 * less than physical present number. In such case we still want
+		 * to parse ACPI processor object information, so mimic the
+		 * pr->id to CPU-0. This should be safe because we only care
+		 * about raw ACPI information, which only relies on pr->acpi_id.
+		 * For other information relying on pr->id and gathered through
+		 * SMP function call, it's safe to let them run on CPU-0 since
+		 * underlying Xen will collect them. Only a valid pr->id can
+		 * make later invocations forward progress.
+		 */
+		pr->id = 0;
+	}