[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <d4beac12-5be3-32ed-28d5-82fc2f79143b@de.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 12:29:50 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Pan Xinhui <xinhui@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel-request@...ts.xenproject.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
paulus@...ba.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, mingo@...hat.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, will.deacon@....com,
kernellwp@...il.com, jgross@...e.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
bsingharora@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] s390/spinlock: Provide vcpu_is_preempted
On 09/30/2016 06:49 AM, Pan Xinhui wrote:
>
> but I can't help thinking that if this is a!SMP system, maybe we could only
> #ifndef CONFIG_SMP
> static inline bool arch_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) { return false; }
> #else
Yes, I will add that to v3. Thanks for spotting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists