On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 14:08 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > The whole idea here is we have only one place taking the decision and > we > don't spread BUG_ON()/panic/stop_cpu everywhere. The benefit is > having > only one place to fix over multiple one because very likely the > decision > is the same everywhere. > > I agree that today it will end up to crashing the system because of > the > BUG_ON. But that's a separate topic. > Yes!!! :-D
I.e., as I've said countless times, I would think that a series which introduces a CPU_STARTING notifier that fails, should also deal with adjusting the CPU process accordingly. *BUT* if you ARM people are ok with arch/arm/ code that does that, perhaps with a comment saying something like: "This will cause us to hit the BUG_ON() in notify_cpu_starting(). To fix that, we need to properly change the CPU bringup code, which will happen in a leter series." that would also work, I guess. :-) Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Software Engineer @ SUSE https://www.suse.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
