[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F7F54960E@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 17:15:32 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v12] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by
kernel
>> static void __init split_lock_setup(void)
>> {
>> - enum split_lock_detect_state sld = sld_state;
>> + enum split_lock_detect_state sld;
>
> This is bike-shedding, but initializing sld = sld_warn here would have
> been enough with no other changes to the patch I think?
Not quite. If there isn't a command line option, we get here:
if (ret < 0)
goto print;
which skips copying the local "sld" to the global "sld_state".
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists