On 1/20/20 12:29 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 05:46:38 -0500
> Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Now that we have a loop which is executed after we return from the
>> main function of a secondary cpu, we can remove the surplus loops.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> s390x/smp.c | 8 +-------
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/s390x/smp.c b/s390x/smp.c
>> index 555ed72..c12a3db 100644
>> --- a/s390x/smp.c
>> +++ b/s390x/smp.c
>> @@ -29,15 +29,9 @@ static void wait_for_flag(void)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> -static void cpu_loop(void)
>> -{
>> - for (;;) {}
>> -}
>> -
>> static void test_func(void)
>> {
>> testflag = 1;
>> - cpu_loop();
>> }
>>
>> static void test_start(void)
>> @@ -234,7 +228,7 @@ int main(void)
>>
>> /* Setting up the cpu to give it a stack and lowcore */
>> psw.mask = extract_psw_mask();
>> - psw.addr = (unsigned long)cpu_loop;
>> + psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func;
>
> Before, you did not set testflag here... intended change?
Yes
It is set to 0 before the first test, so it shouldn't matter.
>
>> smp_cpu_setup(1, psw);
>> smp_cpu_stop(1);
>>
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
