From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/nmi: remove spurious local_irq_enable from check_nmi_watchdog()
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 14:31:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5373703D.2030308@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53738B020200007800012311@mail.emea.novell.com>
On 14/05/14 14:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 14.05.14 at 14:58, <david.vrabel@citrix.com> wrote:
>> All callers of check_nmi_watchdog() already have local irqs enabled so
>> remove the unpaired local_irq_enable().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
>> ---
>> xen/arch/x86/nmi.c | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/nmi.c b/xen/arch/x86/nmi.c
>> index 526020b..18d3820 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/nmi.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/nmi.c
>> @@ -126,7 +126,6 @@ int __init check_nmi_watchdog (void)
>>
>> for_each_online_cpu ( cpu )
>> prev_nmi_count[cpu] = nmi_count(cpu);
>> - local_irq_enable();
>
> I guess this will want to be replaced by a suitable ASSERT(), to make
> sure eventual new callers adhere to the described rule.
smp_call_function() and on_selected_cpus() which is where this matters
already has such an ASSERT() so I don't think another one needs to be
added here.
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-14 13:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-14 12:58 [PATCH 0/4] x86/nmi: improve NMI watchdog test David Vrabel
2014-05-14 12:58 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86/nmi: remove spurious local_irq_enable from check_nmi_watchdog() David Vrabel
2014-05-14 13:25 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-14 13:31 ` David Vrabel [this message]
2014-05-14 13:53 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-15 11:40 ` Tim Deegan
2014-05-14 12:58 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86/nmi: enable local irqs in wait_for_nmis() David Vrabel
2014-05-14 13:57 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-14 14:38 ` David Vrabel
2014-05-14 14:45 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-15 11:55 ` Tim Deegan
2014-05-14 12:58 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86/nmi: wait for all CPUs in check_nmi_watchdog() David Vrabel
2014-05-14 13:59 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-14 14:09 ` David Vrabel
2014-05-14 14:33 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-14 14:09 ` Andrew Cooper
2014-05-15 11:47 ` Tim Deegan
2014-05-14 12:58 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86/nmi: be less verbose when testing the NMI watchdog David Vrabel
2014-05-15 11:48 ` Tim Deegan
2014-05-14 13:03 ` [PATCH 0/4] x86/nmi: improve NMI watchdog test Andrew Cooper
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5373703D.2030308@citrix.com \
--to=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.