On 1/20/20 5:11 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 15:41:52 +0100
> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 1/20/20 12:29 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 05:46:38 -0500
>>> Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> 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 <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  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.
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);
>>>>    
>>>   
>>
>>
>