On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 12:06 -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 11:21 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2009, at 9:03 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > >
> > > for (cpu = cpu_first_thread_in_core(cpu); > > > cpu <= cpu_last_thread_in_core(cpu); cpu++) > > > __clear_bit(id, stale_map[cpu]); > > > > > > == > > > > > > cpu = cpu_first_thread_in_core(cpu); > > > while (cpu <= cpu_last_thread_in_core(cpu)) { > > > __clear_bit(id, stale_map[cpu]); > > > cpu++; > > > } > > cpu_last_thread_in_core(cpu) is a moving target. You want something > like: > > cpu = cpu_first_thread_in_core(cpu); > last = cpu_last_thread_in_core(cpu); > while (cpu <= last) { > __clear_bit(id, stale_map[cpu]); > cpu++; > } Or, keeping the for loop: for (cpu = cpu_first_thread_in_core(cpu), last = cpu_last_thread_in_core(cpu); cpu <= last; cpu++) cpu++; > > > > > > > cpu = 0 > > > cpu <= 1 > > > cpu++ (1) > > > cpu <= 1 > > > cpu++ (2) > > > cpu <= 3 > > > ... > > > > Which is pretty much what I see, in a dual core setup, I get an oops > > because we are trying to clear cpu #2 (which clearly doesn't exist) > > > > cpu = 1 > > (in loop) > > clearing 1 > > clearing 2 > > OOPS > > > > - k > -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev