On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:32:25AM +0800, Jingyi Wang wrote: > > On 5/21/2020 10:00 PM, Zenghui Yu wrote: > > On 2020/5/17 18:08, Jingyi Wang wrote: > > > If ipi_exec() fails because of timeout, we shouldn't increase > > > the number of ipi received. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <wangjingyi11@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > arm/micro-bench.c | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arm/micro-bench.c b/arm/micro-bench.c > > > index 4612f41..ca022d9 100644 > > > --- a/arm/micro-bench.c > > > +++ b/arm/micro-bench.c > > > @@ -103,7 +103,9 @@ static void ipi_exec(void) > > > while (!ipi_received && tries--) > > > cpu_relax(); > > > - ++received; > > > + if (ipi_recieved) > > > > I think you may want *ipi_received* ;-) Otherwise it can not even > > compile! > > > > > + ++received; > > > + > > > assert_msg(ipi_received, "failed to receive IPI in time, but > > > received %d successfully\n", received); > > > } > > > > With this fixed, this looks good to me, > > > > Reviewed-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > . > This variable name is modified in the next patch, so I ignored that > mistake, thanks. > kvm-unit-tests build and run fast enough that you can do something like git rebase -i -x 'make clean && make && arm/run arm/micro-bench' to test your series before posting. Thanks, drew _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
