On 13.02.2020 12:41, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:19:02AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 13.02.2020 11:03, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:59:29AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.02.2020 17:49, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> Using scratch_cpumask in
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:19:02AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.02.2020 11:03, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:59:29AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 12.02.2020 17:49, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >>> Using scratch_cpumask in send_IPI_mak is not safe because it can be
> >>
On 13.02.2020 11:03, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:59:29AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 12.02.2020 17:49, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>> Using scratch_cpumask in send_IPI_mak is not safe because it can be
>>> called from interrupt context, and hence Xen would have to make sure
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:59:29AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.02.2020 17:49, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > Using scratch_cpumask in send_IPI_mak is not safe because it can be
> > called from interrupt context, and hence Xen would have to make sure
> > all the users of the scratch cpumask disabl
On 12.02.2020 17:49, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> Using scratch_cpumask in send_IPI_mak is not safe because it can be
> called from interrupt context, and hence Xen would have to make sure
> all the users of the scratch cpumask disable interrupts while using
> it.
>
> Instead introduce a new cpumask t
Using scratch_cpumask in send_IPI_mak is not safe because it can be
called from interrupt context, and hence Xen would have to make sure
all the users of the scratch cpumask disable interrupts while using
it.
Instead introduce a new cpumask to be used by send_IPI_mask, and
disable interrupts while
