On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:21:49 -0400 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > I'm trying to understand how this will fix it for you. Are you sure you > > removed 'xen_nopvspin'? > > Yes. > > > > If you are calling static_key_slow_inc() before jump_label_init(), then > > it should still fail. The static_key_slow_inc() eventually calls > > arch_jump_label_transform(), which calls __jump_label_transform() with > > init == 0. > > Perhaps I am misreading the code, but I believe init is set to one. > That is due to us calling: > > arch_jump_label_transform (.., JUMP_LABEL_ENABLE) > > which calls __jump_label_transform(.., 1) > ?
>From what I'm looking at, only arch_jump_label_transform_static() calls __jump_label_transform() with a 1 for init. arch_jump_label_transform() calls it with 0 for init, which is what eventually gets called by xen_init_spinlocks(). > > Perhaps the 'init' and 'enable' parameters have different meanings? Yes they do. -- Steve > > > > > The below code looks to me that it would still compare the contents > > with the ideal_nop, which hasn't been set yet. > > In the !init case - sure. > > In the init case - just with default_nop. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
