[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57029AC7.90201@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:48:07 -0400
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, sstabellini@...nel.org,
rt@...utronix.de, Juergen Gross <JGross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: Add comment for missing FROZEN notifier
transitions
On 04/04/2016 12:30 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 04/04/16 17:21, Julien Grall wrote:
>> (CC Stefano new e-mail address)
>>
>> Hello Anna-Maria,
>>
>> On 04/04/2016 13:32, Anna-Maria Gleixner wrote:
>>> Xen guests do not offline/online CPUs during suspend/resume and
>>> therefore FROZEN notifier transitions are not required. Add this
>>> explanation as a comment in the code to get not confused why
>>> CPU_TASKS_FROZEN masked transitions are not considered.
> Alternatively, these could be added even if they are not encountered.
> This might be more future-proof but the documentation might be clearer.
>
> Boris, Juergen, any opinion?
Wouldn't the same comment need to be added to xen_hvm_cpu_notify()?
-boris
>
> David>> --- a/drivers/xen/events/events_fifo.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/xen/events/events_fifo.c
>>> @@ -425,6 +425,12 @@ static int evtchn_fifo_cpu_notification(
>>> int cpu = (long)hcpu;
>>> int ret = 0;
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * Xen guests do not offline/online CPUs during
>>> + * suspend/resume, thus CPU_TASKS_FROZEN masked transitions
>>> + * are not considered.
>>> + */
>> NIT: The '*' is not aligned with the others.
> If this doesn't need any other changes, I'll fix this on commit.
>
> David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists