On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Dario Faggioli
wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 18:34 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 04/05/16 18:21, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> >
>> > After all, I'm fine with an ASSERT() too, but then I think we
>> > should
>> > add one to the same effect to csched_switch_sched() t
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:21:40PM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 18:34 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On 04/05/16 18:21, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > >
> > > After all, I'm fine with an ASSERT() too, but then I think we
> > > should
> > > add one to the same effect to csched_s
On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 18:34 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/05/16 18:21, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >
> > After all, I'm fine with an ASSERT() too, but then I think we
> > should
> > add one to the same effect to csched_switch_sched() too.
> Well an ASSERT() is sort of like a comment, in that if
On 04/05/16 18:21, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 18:05 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 04/05/16 16:58, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 16:11 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> There are quite a few other similar cases all around scheduling
>>> code.
>>> Some of them h
On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 18:05 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/05/16 16:58, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 16:11 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > There are quite a few other similar cases all around scheduling
> > code.
> > Some of them have comments, none has ASSERT()-s, and I thi
On 04/05/16 16:58, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 16:11 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 03/05/16 22:46, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>>
>>> In fact, interrupts are already disabled when calling
>>> the hook from schedule_cpu_switch(), and hence using
>>> anything different than just spin
On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 16:11 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 03/05/16 22:46, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >
> > In fact, interrupts are already disabled when calling
> > the hook from schedule_cpu_switch(), and hence using
> > anything different than just spin_lock() is wrong (and
> > ASSERT()-s in deb
On 03/05/16 22:46, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> In fact, interrupts are already disabled when calling
> the hook from schedule_cpu_switch(), and hence using
> anything different than just spin_lock() is wrong (and
> ASSERT()-s in debug builds) or unnecessary.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli
Good ca
On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 02:48 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 03.05.16 at 23:46, wrote:
> > In fact, interrupts are already disabled when calling
> > the hook from schedule_cpu_switch(), and hence using
> > anything different than just spin_lock() is wrong (and
> > ASSERT()-s in debug builds) o
>>> On 03.05.16 at 23:46, wrote:
> In fact, interrupts are already disabled when calling
> the hook from schedule_cpu_switch(), and hence using
> anything different than just spin_lock() is wrong (and
> ASSERT()-s in debug builds) or unnecessary.
Well, this is a little too broad a statement: spin
In fact, interrupts are already disabled when calling
the hook from schedule_cpu_switch(), and hence using
anything different than just spin_lock() is wrong (and
ASSERT()-s in debug builds) or unnecessary.
Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli
---
Cc: George Dunlap
Cc: Wei Liu
---
xen/common/sched_cre
11 matches
Mail list logo
