From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: question about arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 11:22:41 +0300 Message-ID: <4A599D51.8030506@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Julia Lawall Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Christian_Borntr=E4ger?= , Carsten Otte , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-ID: (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