> (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? Good catch! It's broken, I'll send a fix later today. so long, Carsten -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html