Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote:
[I forgot to reply to the this:]
>>> --- kvm-60/user/test/x86/access.c
>>> +++ kvm-60/user/test/x86/access.c 2008/01/24 15:14:16
>>> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
>>>
>>> #include "smp.h"
>>> #include "printf.h"
>>> +#include "string.h"
>>>
>>> #define true 1
>>> #define false 0
>>> @@ -569,7 +570,7 @@
>>> int r;
>>>
>>> printf("starting test\n\n");
>>> - smp_init(ac_test_run);
>>> + smp_init((void (*)(void))ac_test_run);
>>> r = ac_test_run();
>>> return r ? 0 : 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>> Better to add a wrapper that conforms to the expected signature, and
>> makes sure the return value of ac_test_run() is not lost.
>>
>
> this will require redefining smp_init as shown by :
>
> --- a/user/test/x86/lib/smp.h
> +++ b/user/test/x86/lib/smp.h
> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ struct spinlock {
> int v;
> };
>
> -void smp_init(void (*smp_main)(void));
> +void smp_init(int (*smp_main)(void));
>
> int cpu_count(void);
> int smp_id(void);
>
> and will require also fixing the smp.flat test to build againg and to return
> a bool when executed (will send patches for doing both later if that is what
> you want)
>
Yes please. smp.flat was only used during smp bringup, but it may be
useful later.
>
>> Haven't run access.flat on smp for a long while; the results should be
>> interesting after the page fault scaling work.
>>
>
> if you meant `kvmctl -s2` it doesn't seem to get pass the kvm device
> initialization inside kvmctl for kvm-60.
>
Sigh, we should start automated runs of this thing.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
