[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 14:35, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 15/11/11 13:27, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> 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 > > Ok. > > Do you want any other patches to be tested on the problem server? While not directly related, throwing in "x86/IRQ: prevent vector sharing within IO-APICs" (which I want to apply only after this one) would certainly be good. Plus of course the experimental, yet to be written, use of desc->arch.old_vector in end_level_io_apic_irq() (which anyway should be done only after a good run with the above included). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |