On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:19:44AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 19.04.17 at 17:54, <daniel.ki...@oracle.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:47:15AM -0500, Eric DeVolder wrote: > >> @@ -1193,6 +1194,9 @@ static int do_kexec_op_internal(unsigned long op, > >> if ( ret ) > >> return ret; > >> > >> + if ( test_and_set_bit(KEXEC_FLAG_IN_HYPERCALL, &kexec_flags) ) > >> + return hypercall_create_continuation(__HYPERVISOR_kexec_op, "lh", > >> op, uarg); > >> + > > > > I would suggest here: > > ASSERT(test_bit(KEXEC_FLAG_IN_HYPERCALL, &kexec_flags)); > > You're kidding? The flag was set just in the line above. Or do you > really mean we need to consider test_and_set_bit() not doing what > it is supposed to do?
Yep, it looks ridiculous. However, ASSERT() in kexec_swap_images() looks almost the same for me. So, TBH, I still do not understand need for it at all. Could you enlighten me? If we really need it I would put it at the beginning of every function called from switch() in do_kexec_op_internal(). Just in case. Though I still do not see the point for it. At least in that form. Daniel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
