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

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

(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