Re: question about arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c

Avi Kivity
2009-07-12T08:19:54Z

(copying some s390 people)

On 07/10/2009 02:47 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> In a recent version of linux-next, the function kvm_s390_handle_wait
> contains the following code:
>
> add_wait_queue(&vcpu->arch.local_int.wq,&wait);
> while (list_empty(&vcpu->arch.local_int.list)&&
> list_empty(&vcpu->arch.local_int.float_int->list)&&
> (!vcpu->arch.local_int.timer_due)&&
> !signal_pending(current)) {
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> spin_unlock_bh(&vcpu->arch.local_int.lock);
> spin_unlock(&vcpu->arch.local_int.float_int->lock);
> vcpu_put(vcpu);
> schedule();
> vcpu_load(vcpu);
> spin_lock(&vcpu->arch.local_int.float_int->lock);
> spin_lock_bh(&vcpu->arch.local_int.lock);
> }
> __unset_cpu_idle(vcpu);
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> remove_wait_queue(&vcpu->wq,&wait);
>
> It seems a bit odd that the first argument to add_wait queue is
> &vcpu->arch.local_int.wq but the first argument to remove_wait_queue is
> &vcpu->wq. I don't see any obvious evidence that they are the same thing,
> but perhaps I am missing something. Should either call be changed?
>
> julia
>

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function