From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] xen: sched: add .init_pdata hook to the scheduler interface Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:35:33 +0200 Message-ID: <1443695733.14525.12.camel@citrix.com> References: <20150929164726.17589.96920.stgit@Solace.station> <20150929165556.17589.62924.stgit@Solace.station> <560D082402000078000A7573@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <1443691579.3276.242.camel@citrix.com> <560D231802000078000A75F1@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8006446787691600382==" Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhbDI-0001jK-LW for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 10:35:48 +0000 In-Reply-To: <560D231802000078000A75F1@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: George Dunlap , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Juergen Gross List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============8006446787691600382== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QZ0xpi+sKh153eu/5UFr" --=-QZ0xpi+sKh153eu/5UFr Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 04:12 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > Okay. The thing is that looking at schedule_cpu_switch() alone > (and also considering its name) it is not clear that all callers > either > move the CPU into unusable state (from scheduling pov) or out > of it, but never between CPUs from usable to usable.=20 > I agree. > No assertion, no comment, nothing. IOW even if not an active bug, > at least a latent one with your changes. > Well, for sure the patch does fix an actual bug, as detailed in the changelog. Two of them, actually, considering that it is this alloc<-->init split that allows to fix the Credit2 runqueue bug. But sure I don't want to introduce a new bug --no matter whether actual or latent-- even if I'm fixing two! :-D I certainly can add both, a comment and an ASSERT(). Is that ok? Thanks and Regards, Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) --=-QZ0xpi+sKh153eu/5UFr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEABECAAYFAlYNDHUACgkQk4XaBE3IOsSrawCffstZ9RMQxENXAUnMsDMuhH/A 7JUAoKXvvei4Bt6CAKnTnat/T52gU0uT =zGCW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-QZ0xpi+sKh153eu/5UFr-- --===============8006446787691600382== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============8006446787691600382==--