On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:36:19 +0200 Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 26.06.2012, at 17:33, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:52:56 +0200 > > Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > >> On 26.06.2012, at 16:06, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >> > >>> From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> Only if the sensed cpu is not running a status is stored, which > >>> is reflected by condition code 1. If the cpu is running, condition > >>> code 0 should be returned. > >>> Just the opposite of what the code is doing. > >>> > >>> Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Yikes. Is this a stable candidate? > > > > This code will only hit when running on a host running virtualized > > itself (where sigp sense running will cause an intercept), so I doubt > > many people will see the effects. > > You mean this will hit when running kvm inside of a z/VM VM? That's a pretty valid use case. I'd have thought it was a very uncommon one. But I certainly don't object against putting the fix into stable. Cornelia -- 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
