From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler (updated to add support for CPU pools) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:20:14 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: George Dunlap , Kathy Hadley Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Gross , Juergen List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 16/06/2010 17:14, "George Dunlap" wrote: >> =A0I actually tried the xmalloc() method first. =A0I found that when the >> .adjust_global function was called, the address of the "ops" data struct= ure >> passed to that function was different from the address of the "ops" data >> structure when the .init function was called. =A0I wanted to use .adjust_g= lobal >> to modify the data structure that was created when the .init function wa= s >> called, but I could not figure out a way to get the address of the secon= d >> data structure. =A0Suggestions? >=20 > It's been a month or two since I trawled through the cpupools code; > but I seem to recall that .init is called twice -- once for the > "default pool" (cpupool0), and once for an actually in-use pool. > (Juergen, can you correct me if I'm wrong?) Is it possible that > that's the difference in the pointers that you're seeing? Oh yes, that was the old behaviour. I took a hatchet to the scheduler/cpupool interfaces a few weeks ago and now we should only initialise the scheduler once, unless extra cpupools are manually created. The fact that Kathy is seeing two different ops structures probably indicates that her xen-unstable tree is very out of date. Which may also mean that the patch will not apply to current tip. -- Keir