Re: question about arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



(copying some s390 people)

On 07/10/2009 02:47 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
In a recent version of linux-next, the function kvm_s390_handle_wait
contains the following code:

         add_wait_queue(&vcpu->arch.local_int.wq,&wait);
         while (list_empty(&vcpu->arch.local_int.list)&&
                 list_empty(&vcpu->arch.local_int.float_int->list)&&
                 (!vcpu->arch.local_int.timer_due)&&
                 !signal_pending(current)) {
                 set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
                 spin_unlock_bh(&vcpu->arch.local_int.lock);
                 spin_unlock(&vcpu->arch.local_int.float_int->lock);
                 vcpu_put(vcpu);
                 schedule();
                 vcpu_load(vcpu);
                 spin_lock(&vcpu->arch.local_int.float_int->lock);
                 spin_lock_bh(&vcpu->arch.local_int.lock);
         }
         __unset_cpu_idle(vcpu);
         __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
         remove_wait_queue(&vcpu->wq,&wait);

It seems a bit odd that the first argument to add_wait queue is
&vcpu->arch.local_int.wq but the first argument to remove_wait_queue is
&vcpu->wq.  I don't see any obvious evidence that they are the same thing,
but perhaps I am missing something.  Should either call be changed?

julia


--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux