>>> On 23.02.15 at 13:01, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 23/02/15 11:06, Jan Beulich wrote: >> I have no idea how I came to use __cpumask_set_cpu() there, the >> conversion should have been set_bit() -> __set_bit(). The wrong >> construct results in problems on systems with relatively few CPUs. >> >> Reported-by: Sander Eikelenboom <li...@eikelenboom.it> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > Insofar as this clearly corrects the identified regression, > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > > However, I am still not convinced that the resulting code is actually > correct. > > batch_mask is a cpumask_t and used properly as a cpumask in > cpumask_raise_softirq(). It is wrong to be putting softirq indices into > it here.
Ah, now I see (somehow I didn't pay close enough attention to what you said in the morning) - the code was wrong even before that change. In that case - yes, let's not fix it the wrong way. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
