From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/9] x86/traps: Make panic and reboot paths safe during early boot Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 16:46:58 +0100 Message-ID: <5374E172.606@citrix.com> References: <1400147299-31772-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <1400147299-31772-3-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <5374B0D00200007800012889@mail.emea.novell.com> <53749CB1.3010008@citrix.com> <5374CB680200007800012A1F@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5374CB680200007800012A1F@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: TimDeegan , Keir Fraser , Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 15/05/14 13:12, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 15/05/14 11:19, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Hmm, tying SMP boot and IRQ enabling together seems a little >>> problematic, even if on x86 the former happens soon after the latter >>> right now. Perhaps these ought to be distinct states? >> Which states would you suggest then? > Perhaps "IRQs enabled" and "SMP boot"? I don=92t see how these would help in this case. For both machine_{halt,reboot}(), the local_irq_enable() is purely to prevent tripping the assertion in on_selected_cpus()/smp_call_function(), which is an smp thing rather than an irq thing. I think SYS_STATE_smp_boot is sufficient here. Perhaps I could reword the commit message to put less emphasis on "enabling irqs" and more on the smp side? ~Andrew