[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/6] xen/arm: gic: Use the correct CPU ID
On 09/20/2013 04:44 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 16:03 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > >> +static unsigned int gic_cpu_mask(const cpumask_t *cpumask) >> +{ >> + unsigned int cpu; >> + unsigned int mask = 0; >> + cpumask_t possible_mask; >> + >> + cpumask_and(&possible_mask, cpumask, &cpu_possible_map); > > Based on the other subconversation doesn't this need to be online_mask? > Or is the cpu area setup for cpus which are possible but not online? cpu area is initialized a little bit before the cpu is bring up: * initialize per cpu data (via the notifier_call_chain CPU_UP_PREPARE) * signal the cpu to boot (__cpu_up) ... * call start_secondary * initialize the gic cpu interface (gic_cpu_init) * route ppis (which used gic_cpu_mask) * set the cpu online If we use the cpu online mask, Xen won't be able to route the different ppis to the processor. > Should the check (whichever it is) be an assertion? If we stay with the cpu_possible_map, I think we are fine without an assertion. >> + for_each_cpu(cpu, &possible_mask) >> + { >> + ASSERT(cpu < NR_GIC_CPU_IF); >> + ASSERT(__per_cpu_offset[cpu] != -(long)__per_cpu_start); >> + mask |= per_cpu(gic_cpu_id, cpu); >> + } >> + >> + return mask; >> +} > > -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |