On Wed, 2016-03-23 at 17:51 +0000, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 18/03/16 19:04, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > --- a/xen/common/sched_credit.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/sched_credit.c
> > @@ -542,16 +542,11 @@ csched_alloc_pdata(const struct scheduler
> > *ops, int cpu)
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void
> > -csched_init_pdata(const struct scheduler *ops, void *pdata, int
> > cpu)
> > +init_pdata(struct csched_private *prv, struct csched_pcpu *spc,
> > int cpu)
> >  {
> > -    struct csched_private *prv = CSCHED_PRIV(ops);
> > -    struct csched_pcpu * const spc = pdata;
> > -    unsigned long flags;
> > -
> > -    /* cpu data needs to be allocated, but STILL uninitialized */
> > -    ASSERT(spc && spc->runq.next == spc->runq.prev && spc-
> > >runq.next == NULL);
> > -
> > -    spin_lock_irqsave(&prv->lock, flags);
> > +    ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&prv->lock));
> > +    /* cpu data needs to be allocated, but STILL uninitialized. */
> > +    ASSERT(spc && spc->runq.next == NULL && spc->runq.prev ==
> > NULL);
> Actually, Juergen, looks like Dario already agrees with us. ;-)
> 
Indeed I do! :-)

> Obviously this should be updated in the previous patch instead.
> 
Yeah, sorry. Rebasing / patch-splitting gone wrong! :-/

> With that done:
> 
> Reviewed-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>
> 
I'll do that.

Thanks and Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)