<tt>crash-utility-bounces@redhat.com wrote on 03/09/2006 12:24:26 PM: > Dave Anderson wrote: > > > Sorry -- I see that NR_CPUS is 128 for ppc64 in crash... > > > > But the question remains, do you want to absolutely depend > > upon that always being the case in the kernel? > > > > Dave > > Actually, looking again at the paca code, it doesn't seem that > it is dependent upon the kernel NR_CPUS value.</tt> <tt>Dave, </tt> <tt>Since, we are iterating on nr_paca, though that it may not be an issue even if the kernel changed NR_CPUS to < 128. The only issue is we are reading NR_CPUS/8 for cpu_online_map - not using the remaining part. </tt> <tt>Probably, it will be more clear if you the cpu_online_map size is based on nr_paca. </tt> <tt>Like moving the following line after calculated nr_paca:</tt> + readmem(symbol_value("cpu_online_map"), KVADDR, &cpu_online_map[0], + nr_paca/8, "cpu_online_map", FAULT_ON_ERROR); + <tt>Can I go ahead and change it? - drawback of this approach is if the NR_CPUS in the kernel is greater than 128.</tt> <tt>or do you prefer actual allocating the online_map based on nr_paca? I will make changes based on your suggestions.</tt> <tt>Thanks</tt> <tt>Haren</tt> <tt> > > So perhaps all my bitching is much ado about nothing? > > Dave > > > -- > Crash-utility mailing list > Crash-utility@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility </tt>