Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 7/9] s390x: smp: Remove unneeded cpu loops

Cornelia Huck
2020-01-20T16:11:37Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1611 bytes --]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:41:52 +0100
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 1/20/20 12:29 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 05:46:38 -0500
> > Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Now that we have a loop which is executed after we return from the
> >> main function of a secondary cpu, we can remove the surplus loops.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >> s390x/smp.c | 8 +-------
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/s390x/smp.c b/s390x/smp.c
> >> index 555ed72..c12a3db 100644
> >> --- a/s390x/smp.c
> >> +++ b/s390x/smp.c
> >> @@ -29,15 +29,9 @@ static void wait_for_flag(void)
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static void cpu_loop(void)
> >> -{
> >> - for (;;) {}
> >> -}
> >> -
> >> static void test_func(void)
> >> {
> >> testflag = 1;
> >> - cpu_loop();
> >> }
> >>
> >> static void test_start(void)
> >> @@ -234,7 +228,7 @@ int main(void)
> >>
> >> /* Setting up the cpu to give it a stack and lowcore */
> >> psw.mask = extract_psw_mask();
> >> - psw.addr = (unsigned long)cpu_loop;
> >> + psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func;
> >
> > Before, you did not set testflag here... intended change?
>
> Yes
> It is set to 0 before the first test, so it shouldn't matter.

Hm... I got a bit lost in all those changes, so I checked your branch
on github, and I don't see it being set to 0 before test_start() is
called?

>
> >
> >> smp_cpu_setup(1, psw);
> >> smp_cpu_stop(1);
> >>
> >
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]