On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:46:51 +0100 Janosch Frank wrote: > On 1/20/20 5:11 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:41:52 +0100 > > Janosch Frank wrote: > > > >> On 1/20/20 12:29 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 05:46:38 -0500 > >>> Janosch Frank wrote: > >>> > >>>> Now that we have a loop which is executed after we return from the > >>>> main function of a secondary cpu, we can remove the surplus loops. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank > >>>> --- > >>>> s390x/smp.c | 8 +------- > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/s390x/smp.c b/s390x/smp.c > >>>> index 555ed72..c12a3db 100644 > >>>> --- a/s390x/smp.c > >>>> +++ b/s390x/smp.c > >>>> @@ -29,15 +29,9 @@ static void wait_for_flag(void) > >>>> } > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> -static void cpu_loop(void) > >>>> -{ > >>>> - for (;;) {} > >>>> -} > >>>> - > >>>> static void test_func(void) > >>>> { > >>>> testflag = 1; > >>>> - cpu_loop(); > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> static void test_start(void) > >>>> @@ -234,7 +228,7 @@ int main(void) > >>>> > >>>> /* Setting up the cpu to give it a stack and lowcore */ > >>>> psw.mask = extract_psw_mask(); > >>>> - psw.addr = (unsigned long)cpu_loop; > >>>> + psw.addr = (unsigned long)test_func; > >>> > >>> Before, you did not set testflag here... intended change? > >> > >> Yes > >> It is set to 0 before the first test, so it shouldn't matter. > > > > Hm... I got a bit lost in all those changes, so I checked your branch > > on github, and I don't see it being set to 0 before test_start() is > > called? > > Well, that's because test_start doesn't care about the flag. But I see a wait_for_flag() in there? What am I missing? > ecall and emcall are the first users, and they set it to 0 before using it. > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> smp_cpu_setup(1, psw); > >>>> smp_cpu_stop(1); > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > >