On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:46:51 +0100
Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 1/20/20 5:11 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:41:52 +0100
> > Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Hm... I got a bit lost in all those changes, so I checked your branch
> > on github, and I don't see it being set to 0 before test_start() is
> > called?
>
> Well, that's because test_start doesn't care about the flag.
But I see a wait_for_flag() in there? What am I missing?
> ecall and emcall are the first users, and they set it to 0 before using it.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> smp_cpu_setup(1, psw);
> >>>> smp_cpu_stop(1);
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Attachment:
pgpXYXmTKn8lQ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
