On 04/04/16 15:22, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 04/04/16 14:55, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Hi Sudeep,
>>
>> On 04/04/16 14:46, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> @@ -1270,12 +1279,7 @@ static int init_hyp_mode(void)
>>> free_boot_hyp_pgd();
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> - cpu_notifier_register_begin();
>>> -
>>> - err = __register_cpu_notifier(&hyp_init_cpu_nb);
>>> -
>>> - cpu_notifier_register_done();
>>> -
>>> + err = register_cpu_notifier(&hyp_init_cpu_nb);
>>
>> We went from something like this to the cpu_notifier_register_begin/end
>> with 8146875de ("arm, kvm: Fix CPU hotplug callback registration").
>>
>> What makes it more acceptable now?
>>
>
> Correct, but in the initial code even init_hyp_mode was protected under
> cpu_notifier_register_begin, but IIUC recent re-org eliminated the need
> for that and the above code exactly resembles what register_cpu_notifier
> does.
>
> If that's not the case then we need to move cpu_notifier_register_begin
> further up and retain __register_cpu_notifier
>
> I mainly changed it to keep it consistent with unregister call.
Right, thanks for the explanation. So FWIW:
Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
