On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 10:21:35AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:

On 05.09.14 09:39:32, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:46:42AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:

quoted

From: Radha Mohan Chintakuntla <redacted>

Increase maximum numbers of cpus to 32. This relates to current
maximal possible cpu number. Increasing this to 64 cpus will be a
separate patch not part of this enablement patches.

Just out of interest, does raising the current maximum limit actually break
any existing code? If not, then doing this as two patches doesn't seem worth
it.

Increasing to 64 should be fine from the perspective of cpu mask
implementation. Memory foot print should be the same already as this
uses long which is 64 bit. So this wouldn't hurt.

However, I felt a bit uncomfortable having a dependency here to
enabling 64 cpus and getting this patch set upstream. Support for more
than 32 cpus is not well tested yet and there still might be problems
with e.g. interrupt delivery or topology.

All I mean is, if the kernel doesn't explode on existing systems by changing
the upper limit to 64, then we should do that. If you're not comfortable
that the Thunder code can handle that, then leave the thunder default as 32,
like you do in the current patch. It just seems odd not to change the
maximum number, since it's an arbitrary limit from my perspective.

Will