On 03/01/14 14:44, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:54:13AM +0000, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 02/01/14 18:50, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 04:32:03PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote: >>>> On 01/01/14 04:35, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>>>> @@ -1320,4 +1323,4 @@ static int __gnttab_init(void) >>>>> return gnttab_init(); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> -core_initcall(__gnttab_init); >>>>> +core_initcall_sync(__gnttab_init); >>>> >>>> Why has this become _sync? >>> >>> It needs to run _after_ the xen_pvh_gnttab_setup has run (which is >>> at gnttab_init): >> >> >> The use of core_initcall_sync() doesn't imply any ordering to me. Can't > > It has a clear ordering property.
This really isn't obvious to me. Can you point to the docs/code the guarantee this? I couldn't find it. >> you call xen_pvh_gnttab_setup() from within __gnttab_init() ? > > No. That is due to the fact that __gnttab_init() is in drivers/xen and is > also used by the ARM code. > > Stefano in his previous review mentioned he would like PVH specific > code in arch/x86: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/18/507 Call it xen_arch_gnttab_setup() and add weak stub for other architectures? David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
