[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL] Fix lost interrupt race in Xen event channels
>>> On 30.08.10 at 10:03, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Helpful would be if the function returned whether it actually went > through the mask/unmask pair, as I'm not sure the double > unmasking really is a good idea, especially in the PIRQ case (for > the moment I'm considering putting an already-unmasked check > into both ->eoi() handlers). Actually, it seems to me that this check really (also) belongs into unmask_evtchn(). Keir (I think you wrote this code originally), is there a reason (other than the implied assumption that it won't get called on an already unmasked event channel) the function uses sync_clear_bit() rather than sync_test_and_clear_bit(), doing the other actions only if the bit wasn't already clear, just like Xen itself does for the respective hypercall implementation? Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |