On 02/11/2014 12:20 AM, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 03:37:27AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> @@ -393,9 +393,13 @@ static int __init vsyscall_init(void)
>> {
>> BUG_ON(VSYSCALL_ADDR(0) != __fix_to_virt(VSYSCALL_FIRST_PAGE));
>>
>> + cpu_maps_update_begin();
>> +
>> on_each_cpu(cpu_vsyscall_init, NULL, 1);
>> /* notifier priority > KVM */
>> - hotcpu_notifier(cpu_vsyscall_notifier, 30);
>> + __hotcpu_notifier(cpu_vsyscall_notifier, 30);
>
> While we're at it, we could also #define the VSYSCALL_PRIO relative to
> KVM_PRIO instead of hard-coding the value here, no ?
>
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea, but I guess we can do these
cleanups in a separate patch series.
>> +
>> + cpu_maps_update_done();
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
