(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? julia
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
