>>> On 01.10.15 at 12:35, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 04:12 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Okay. The thing is that looking at schedule_cpu_switch() alone >> (and also considering its name) it is not clear that all callers >> either >> move the CPU into unusable state (from scheduling pov) or out >> of it, but never between CPUs from usable to usable. >> > I agree. > >> No assertion, no comment, nothing. IOW even if not an active bug, >> at least a latent one with your changes. >> > Well, for sure the patch does fix an actual bug, as detailed in the > changelog. Two of them, actually, considering that it is this > alloc<-->init split that allows to fix the Credit2 runqueue bug. > > But sure I don't want to introduce a new bug --no matter whether actual > or latent-- even if I'm fixing two! :-D > > I certainly can add both, a comment and an ASSERT(). Is that ok?
Sure. Personally I'd be fine with just an ASSERT(), but talk to George. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
