On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:12:47PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 05:00:27PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > > The first two patches check whether there are multiple init for > > vm/smp, assertion fail will be triggered if so. > > > > Patch 3 is to cleanup existing setup_igt() when smp_init() is called > > (suggested by Drew). > > > > Peter Xu (3): > > x86: vm: add assert to avoid multiple vm init > > x86: smp: assert to avoid multiple init of smp > > tests: don't call setup_idt() if with smp_init() > > > > lib/x86/smp.c | 1 + > > lib/x86/vm.c | 1 + > > x86/apic.c | 1 - > > x86/hyperv_stimer.c | 1 - > > x86/hyperv_synic.c | 1 - > > x86/ioapic.c | 1 - > > x86/tscdeadline_latency.c | 1 - > > 7 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 2.7.4 > > > > I actually looked at the code this time around and think that only > patch 1/3 is needed. While it would be pointless to call smp_init > multiple times, it doesn't hurt (that means 2/3 is OK, but not > necessary). And, now I see 3/3 is just a cleanup. No assert would > fire without it. So it's not necessary either. > > Actually, wrt to setup_idt, I'd say the only problems with it is > that there's the 'if (idt_initialized) return' and that it isn't > named something like setup_idt_defaults. Isn't it conceivable that > a unit test may want to revert its handlers back to the defaults > after installing custom handlers by simply calling this again? Yeah, that's possible. Maybe we can let anyone who needs this first to introduce the setup_idt_defaults(). For this series: I have no strong willingness to push this in, and yes all three patches are not essential at all. I just picked them out from vt-d unit test series, in case any of us would like to pick it. 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
