[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1304261717300.4180@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:18:01 +0100
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] xen/spinlock: Check against default value of -1
for IRQ line.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> The default (uninitialized) value of the IRQ line is -1.
> Check if we already have allocated an spinlock interrupt line
> and if somebody is trying to do it again. Also set it to -1
> when we offline the CPU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c b/arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c
> index f7a080e..47ae032 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c
> @@ -364,6 +364,9 @@ void __cpuinit xen_init_lock_cpu(int cpu)
> int irq;
> const char *name;
>
> + WARN(per_cpu(lock_kicker_irq, cpu) > 0, "spinlock on CPU%d exists on IRQ%d!\n",
shouldn't this be >= ^
> + cpu, per_cpu(lock_kicker_irq, cpu));
>
> name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "spinlock%d", cpu);
> irq = bind_ipi_to_irqhandler(XEN_SPIN_UNLOCK_VECTOR,
> cpu,
> @@ -383,6 +386,7 @@ void __cpuinit xen_init_lock_cpu(int cpu)
> void xen_uninit_lock_cpu(int cpu)
> {
> unbind_from_irqhandler(per_cpu(lock_kicker_irq, cpu), NULL);
> + per_cpu(lock_kicker_irq, cpu) = -1;
> }
>
> void __init xen_init_spinlocks(void)
> --
> 1.8.1.4
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists