Re: [Xen-devel] Fwd: [xen-4.10-testing bisection] complete test-armhf-armhf-xl-arndale

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 20.06.19 at 19:24, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Actually I may have found the error. I feel quite ashamed I didn't spot 
> this during review and when the bisector fingered it.
> 
> staging-4.11 and staging.4.12 didn't have get_cycles implemented (i.e it 
> returned 0). During the backport, get_cycles() got suddenly implemented 
> (aside the isb()) so it now returns the number of cycles.

Stefano, how can this be a valid backport under the given title? The
(imo) only correct way of backporting that hunk would have been to
simply drop it, adding isb() instead of the switch to call the function
in the two other places.

To both of you: How certain are you that the subsequent type
change is really all that's needed, and that the sudden change in
behavior of get_cycles() won't have other undue side effects?

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel