On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:39:06AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 04:55:22PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > > 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. > > Well I guess the fix is just to remove the unnecessary setup_idt calls > from all unit tests that do smp_init(). Anyway, I won't fight too hard > for this cleanup, but I certainly prefer not to propagate the sloppiness > further into the other setups. It won't be hard to do that. Let me cook one for this. 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
