From 9fc95bebe783341aaf0e285ca2e216035378943c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:30:05 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] sna: Ignore overflow in CPU count rather than abort

If there are more processors than we ever expect, good! Just use lots of
them, rather than none at all.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
---
 src/sna/sna_threads.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/sna/sna_threads.c b/src/sna/sna_threads.c
index 333b7ebd..6627cbda 100644
--- a/src/sna/sna_threads.c
+++ b/src/sna/sna_threads.c
@@ -102,11 +102,11 @@ num_cores(void)
 			int id;
 			if (sscanf(line, "physical id : %d", &id) == 1) {
 				if (id >= 32)
-					return 0;
+					continue;
 				processors |= 1 << id;
 			} else if (sscanf(line, "core id : %d", &id) == 1) {
 				if (id >= 32)
-					return 0;
+					continue;
 				cores |= 1 << id;
 			}
 		}