On 2019/10/3 1:18, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 08:44:38PM +0800, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
Fix stale description of "xen_nopvspin" as we use qspinlock now.
Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan<zhenzhong.duan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross<jgross@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet<corbet@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky<boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Juergen Gross<jgross@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini<sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner<tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ingo Molnar<mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Borislav Petkov<bp@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin"<hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
---
...snip
@@ -93,7 +92,7 @@ void xen_init_lock_cpu(int cpu)
void xen_uninit_lock_cpu(int cpu)
{
- if (!xen_pvspin)
+ if (!pvspin)
return;
unbind_from_irqhandler(per_cpu(lock_kicker_irq, cpu), NULL);
@@ -117,9 +116,9 @@ void __init xen_init_spinlocks(void)
/* Don't need to use pvqspinlock code if there is only 1 vCPU. */
if (num_possible_cpus() == 1)
- xen_pvspin = false;
+ pvspin = false;
As suggested in the other patch, if you incorporate pvspin (or nopvspin)
into xen_pvspin then the param can be __initdata and the diff for this
patch will be smaller, e.g. you wouldn't need the xen_domain() shenanigans
in xen_parse_nopvspin().
Ok, will fix. Thanks
Zhenzhong
