On 2/22/24 17:01, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> After finding the BSP Number return the result instead of
> continuing to loop over the remaining processors.
>
> Suggested-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com>
> ---
> UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c | 11 ++++-------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c
> b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c
> index 4b6d6d02b027..2051554207dc 100644
> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c
> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/MpInitLib/MpLib.c
> @@ -1903,15 +1903,13 @@ GetBspNumber (
> )
> {
> UINT32 ApicId;
> - UINT32 BspNumber;
> UINT32 Index;
> CONST MP_HAND_OFF *MpHandOff;
>
> //
> // Get the processor number for the BSP
> //
> - BspNumber = MAX_UINT32;
> - ApicId = GetInitialApicId ();
> + ApicId = GetInitialApicId ();
>
> for (MpHandOff = FirstMpHandOff;
> MpHandOff != NULL;
> @@ -1919,14 +1917,13 @@ GetBspNumber (
> {
> for (Index = 0; Index < MpHandOff->CpuCount; Index++) {
> if (MpHandOff->Info[Index].ApicId == ApicId) {
> - BspNumber = MpHandOff->ProcessorIndex + Index;
> + return MpHandOff->ProcessorIndex + Index;
> }
> }
> }
>
> - ASSERT (BspNumber != MAX_UINT32);
> -
> - return BspNumber;
> + ASSERT (FALSE);
> + return 0;
> }
>
> /**
There's a somewhat sneaky change in here: if we fail to find the BSP,
then (beyond tripping an assert like before) we now return 0, rather
than MAX_UINT32.
However, that's arguably more sensible, even.
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
Laszlo
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#115965): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/115965
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/104510913/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
