[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/IO-APIC: refine EOI-ing of migrating level interrupts
>>> On 15.11.11 at 14:19, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 15/11/11 13:14, Jan Beulich wrote: >> if ( ioapic_has_eoi_reg(apic) ) >> { >> /* If vector is unknown, read it from the IO-APIC */ >> - if ( vector == -1 ) >> + if ( vector == IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED ) > > Quick style query: I consider IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED logically different > from passing -1 in as a value for vector, even though they are the are > the same value. Is it sensible to mix them? I view it quite the other way around: One should explicitly pass IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED when passing a literal value (which currently doesn't happen anyway. Primarily because passing desc->arch.vector or desc->arch.old_vector could happen to also hold this very value. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |