On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 15:22 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 26.02.15 at 14:37, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote: > > --- a/xen/common/sched_credit2.c > > +++ b/xen/common/sched_credit2.c > > @@ -571,9 +571,11 @@ tickle: > > (unsigned char *)&d); > > } > > cpumask_set_cpu(ipid, &rqd->tickled); > > + SCHED_STAT_CRANK(tickle_idlers_some); > > cpu_raise_softirq(ipid, SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ); > > > > no_tickle: > > + SCHED_STAT_CRANK(tickle_idlers_none); > > return; > > } > > Isn't there a return statement missing ahead of "no_tickle:" now? > There is. I reworked this last minute, and overlooked this... sorry. Will fix for v2.
Thanks and Regards, Dario
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
