[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <11c26286-cd13-f922-9113-580483181d26@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 09:02:53 +0200
From: Juergen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc: xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/x86: Don't BUG on CPU0 offlining
On 06/28/2017 06:31 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 06:39:30PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_HOTPLUG_CPU0 allows to offline CPU0 but Xen HVM guests
>>> BUG() in xen_teardown_timer(). Remove the BUG_ON(), this is probably a
>>> leftover from ancient times when CPU0 hotplug was impossible, it works
>>> just fine for HVM.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>
>> BUG_ON(cpu == 0 && xen_pv_domain());
>>
>
> Linus says no BUG_ONs :-)
>
> xen_pv_cpu_disable() has the following:
>
> if (cpu == 0)
> return -EBUSY;
>
> as a protection so we won't get to xen_teardown_timer() but if you think
> additional BUG_ON() protection is justified I'm definitely not against
> adding it.
No, I don't think its needed. This should be handled at the appropriate
level, not down in the timer handling.
So:
Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Juergen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists