While converting to __cpumask_set_cpu() was correct, the first argument
passed should have been corrected to be "cpu" instead of "nr" at once.
The wrong construct results in problems on systems with relatively few
CPUs.
Reported-by: Sander Eikelenboom <li...@eikelenboom.it>
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
---
v2: As Andrew points out the original code was wrong too, and hence
the use of __cpumask_set_cpu) was correct. What was wrong was the
use of "nr" as the bit position.
--- a/xen/common/softirq.c
+++ b/xen/common/softirq.c
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ void cpu_raise_softirq(unsigned int cpu,
if ( !per_cpu(batching, this_cpu) || in_irq() )
smp_send_event_check_cpu(cpu);
else
- __cpumask_set_cpu(nr, &per_cpu(batch_mask, this_cpu));
+ __cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &per_cpu(batch_mask, this_cpu));
}
void cpu_raise_softirq_batch_begin(void)
complete conversion set_bit() -> __cpumask_set_cpu() by 4aaca0e9cd
While converting to __cpumask_set_cpu() was correct, the first argument
passed should have been corrected to be "cpu" instead of "nr" at once.
The wrong construct results in problems on systems with relatively few
CPUs.
Reported-by: Sander Eikelenboom <li...@eikelenboom.it>
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
---
v2: As Andrew points out the original code was wrong too, and hence
the use of __cpumask_set_cpu) was correct. What was wrong was the
use of "nr" as the bit position.
--- a/xen/common/softirq.c
+++ b/xen/common/softirq.c
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ void cpu_raise_softirq(unsigned int cpu,
if ( !per_cpu(batching, this_cpu) || in_irq() )
smp_send_event_check_cpu(cpu);
else
- __cpumask_set_cpu(nr, &per_cpu(batch_mask, this_cpu));
+ __cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &per_cpu(batch_mask, this_cpu));
}
void cpu_raise_softirq_batch_begin(void)
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
