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

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

[-- 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 --]