>>> On 06.04.17 at 10:49, <haozhong.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > On 04/06/17 02:06 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 06.04.17 at 06:55, <haozhong.zh...@intel.com> wrote: >> > @@ -1774,6 +1778,7 @@ void mce_handler_init(void) >> > mce_barrier_init(&mce_severity_bar); >> > mce_barrier_init(&mce_trap_bar); >> > mce_barrier_init(&mce_handler_init_bar); >> > + mce_barrier_init(&mce_softirq_init_bar); >> >> Just like the variables you move, all these mce_*_bar ones are >> really private to their respective functions. I've taken a not to >> put together a patch to move the pre-existing ones, but please >> don't introduce any new ones with file scope. > > How is about introducing a static initializer for mce barrier so that > I can initialize static ones at their declaration? Or is the static > initializer completely not needed because all fields of mce barrier > are currently initialized to 0?
Yes, there should be a static initializer introduced for that purpose, despite all currently present fields wanting to simply be zero. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
