Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1450359 > unrolled thread

linux-next: manual merge of the xen-tip tree with the tip tree

Started byStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
First post2016-07-26 06:10 +0200
Last post2016-07-26 16:10 +0200
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel


Contents

  linux-next: manual merge of the xen-tip tree with the tip tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-07-26 06:10 +0200
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen-tip tree with the tip tree Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> - 2016-07-26 16:10 +0200

#1450359 — linux-next: manual merge of the xen-tip tree with the tip tree

FromStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date2016-07-26 06:10 +0200
Subjectlinux-next: manual merge of the xen-tip tree with the tip tree
Message-ID<rZ1QS-5E8-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:

  arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c

between commit:

  4c9075835511 ("xen/x86: Move irq allocation from Xen smp_op.cpu_up()")

from the tip tree and commit:

  88e957d6e47f ("xen: introduce xen_vcpu_id mapping")

from the xen-tip tree.

I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
index dc96f939af88,85ef4c0442e0..000000000000
--- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
+++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
@@@ -1803,49 -1823,21 +1824,53 @@@ static void __init init_hvm_pv_info(voi
  	xen_domain_type = XEN_HVM_DOMAIN;
  }
  
 -static int xen_hvm_cpu_notify(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long action,
 -			      void *hcpu)
 +static int xen_cpu_notify(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long action,
 +			  void *hcpu)
  {
  	int cpu = (long)hcpu;
 +	int rc;
 +
  	switch (action) {
  	case CPU_UP_PREPARE:
 -		if (cpu_acpi_id(cpu) != U32_MAX)
 -			per_cpu(xen_vcpu_id, cpu) = cpu_acpi_id(cpu);
 -		else
 -			per_cpu(xen_vcpu_id, cpu) = cpu;
 -		xen_vcpu_setup(cpu);
 -		if (xen_have_vector_callback) {
 -			if (xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_safe_pvclock))
 -				xen_setup_timer(cpu);
 +		if (xen_hvm_domain()) {
 +			/*
 +			 * This can happen if CPU was offlined earlier and
 +			 * offlining timed out in common_cpu_die().
 +			 */
 +			if (cpu_report_state(cpu) == CPU_DEAD_FROZEN) {
 +				xen_smp_intr_free(cpu);
 +				xen_uninit_lock_cpu(cpu);
 +			}
 +
++			if (cpu_acpi_id(cpu) != U32_MAX)
++				per_cpu(xen_vcpu_id, cpu) = cpu_acpi_id(cpu);
++			else
++				per_cpu(xen_vcpu_id, cpu) = cpu;
 +			xen_vcpu_setup(cpu);
  		}
 +
 +		if (xen_pv_domain() ||
 +		    (xen_have_vector_callback &&
 +		     xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_safe_pvclock)))
 +			xen_setup_timer(cpu);
 +
 +		rc = xen_smp_intr_init(cpu);
 +		if (rc) {
 +			WARN(1, "xen_smp_intr_init() for CPU %d failed: %d\n",
 +			     cpu, rc);
 +			return NOTIFY_BAD;
 +		}
 +
 +		break;
 +	case CPU_ONLINE:
 +		xen_init_lock_cpu(cpu);
 +		break;
 +	case CPU_UP_CANCELED:
 +		xen_smp_intr_free(cpu);
 +		if (xen_pv_domain() ||
 +		    (xen_have_vector_callback &&
 +		     xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_safe_pvclock)))
 +			xen_teardown_timer(cpu);
  		break;
  	default:
  		break;

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1450610

FromBoris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Date2016-07-26 16:10 +0200
Message-ID<rZbdv-2V0-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1450359
On 07/26/2016 12:01 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
>
>   arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   4c9075835511 ("xen/x86: Move irq allocation from Xen smp_op.cpu_up()")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
>   88e957d6e47f ("xen: introduce xen_vcpu_id mapping")
>
> from the xen-tip tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>

Thank you Stephen. Both this and arch/x86/xen/smp.c merges (from another
message) look good.

-boris

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web