On 02.03.20 19:16, Dario Faggioli wrote:
On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 17:59 +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 02.03.20 17:49, Dario Faggioli wrote:
On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 09:58 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
@@ -2360,6 +2360,8 @@
unit->cpu_soft_affinity);
cpumask_and(cpumask_scratch_cpu(cpu),
cpumask_scratch_cpu(cpu),
&min_s_rqd->active);
+
+ BUG_ON(!min_rqd);
}
else if ( min_rqd )
{
possibly accompanied by a comment. Thoughts?
Yes, I think this is a good idea.
Personally, I'd put the BUG_ON() outside of the "if {} else if {}
else
{}" block (i.e., just above the cpumask_cycle().
I don't think so.
Otherwise the "else if ( min_rqd )" wouldn't make sense.
Why wouldn't it?
I mean, what I was saying is that I think it would be nice to have,
just before this:
new_cpu = cpumask_cycle(min_rqd->pick_bias, cpumask_scratch_cpu(cpu));
min_rqd->pick_bias = new_cpu;
Sorry, my brain was in a low power state.
I managed to understand you completely wrong, thinking you wanted to
add the BUG_ON() before the if ... block.
Sorry for the noise,
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
