From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: CPU notifiers must not be
	registered a second time during resume
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:35:54 +0000
Message-ID: <4D8397FA0200007800037494@vpn.id2.novell.com>
References: <4D8383340200007800037412@vpn.id2.novell.com>
	<C9A92E38.150A6%keir.xen@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <C9A92E38.150A6%keir.xen@gmail.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com>
Cc: Jinsong Liu <jinsong.liu@intel.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>> On 18.03.11 at 16:43, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/03/2011 15:07, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>=20
>> While c/s 22964:f71212f712fd and 23051:93c864c16ab1 fixed issues with
>> CPU onlining, they introduced a problem with resume: mcheck_init() is
>> also being called on that path, and hence checking whether it's running
>> on CPU 0, which is generally not a really good thing, is particularly
>> inappropriate here.
>=20
> Just have a 'static bool_t early_init_done' or similar in
> intel_mcheck_init().

And another in mcheck_init(). If the proliferates, an alternative I
would like a little better would be to just have a global variable (e.g.
extending early_boot).

> if ( !early_init_done ) {
>  BUG_ON(smp_processor_id() !=3D 0);
>  ...
>  early_init_done =3D 1;
> }
>=20
> It's clearer anyway -- we're simply protecting one-time-only early-boot-t=
ime
> initialisation stuff.

What's wrong with doing the protection by passing down the
necessary information?

Jan