On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:41:37AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: [...] > Let's do these patches separate from the series and maybe change setup_idt > too? It'd be interesting to see if the assert in setup_idt would fire, > i.e. if any users are relying on it being tolerant to multiple calls, and > then find out why. The problem should be: smp_init() is calling setup_idt(). So if we change the init stuff in setup_idt() into an assertion, any test program that calls both smp_init() and setup_idt() would possibly fail the assertion. Actually I see most test cases are using: setup_vm(); smp_init(); setup_idt(); to setup a basic environment, so I guess all of these use cases would fail. In that sense, I'd slightly prefer keep setup_idt() as it is. Thanks, -- peterx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
