On Fri, 11 May 2018, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 14:08 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > > The whole idea here is we have only one place taking the decision and > > we > > don't spread BUG_ON()/panic/stop_cpu everywhere. The benefit is > > having > > only one place to fix over multiple one because very likely the > > decision > > is the same everywhere. > > > > I agree that today it will end up to crashing the system because of > > the > > BUG_ON. But that's a separate topic. > > > Yes!!! :-D > > I.e., as I've said countless times, I would think that a series which > introduces a CPU_STARTING notifier that fails, should also deal with > adjusting the CPU process accordingly. > > *BUT* if you ARM people are ok with arch/arm/ code that does that, > perhaps with a comment saying something like: > > "This will cause us to hit the BUG_ON() in notify_cpu_starting(). To > fix that, we need to properly change the CPU bringup code, which will > happen in a leter series." > > that would also work, I guess. :-)
Yes, I think that returning error with an in-code comment on top is the best solution. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
