On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 04:12 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > Okay. The thing is that looking at schedule_cpu_switch() alone > (and also considering its name) it is not clear that all callers > either > move the CPU into unusable state (from scheduling pov) or out > of it, but never between CPUs from usable to usable. > I agree.
> No assertion, no comment, nothing. IOW even if not an active bug, > at least a latent one with your changes. > Well, for sure the patch does fix an actual bug, as detailed in the changelog. Two of them, actually, considering that it is this alloc<-->init split that allows to fix the Credit2 runqueue bug. But sure I don't want to introduce a new bug --no matter whether actual or latent-- even if I'm fixing two! :-D I certainly can add both, a comment and an ASSERT(). Is that ok? Thanks and Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
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
