Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 09/21] xen/arm: Release IRQ routed to a domain when it's destroying

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 17:39 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2014, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 08/07/2014 05:31 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Thu, 7 Aug 2014, Julien Grall wrote:
> > >> On 08/07/2014 04:36 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > >>>> But I doubt we will have PPIs in future, there is more issues to handle
> > >>>> (such as the number of VCPUs doesn't match the number of physical 
> > >>>> CPUs).
> > >>>
> > >>> In that case, why not call the two functions release_guest_spi and
> > >>> gic_remove_spi_from_guest?
> > >>
> > >> Because the 2 functions to route the irq are called route_irq_to_guest
> > >> and gic_route_irq_to_guest.
> > > 
> > > I would prefer to avoid introducing more functions that look like they
> > > can handle any irqs but actually they cannot by design.
> > 
> > That why Xen checks the IRQ number at the beginning of route_irq_to_guest.
> > 
> > > I would be OK with the asymmetry in function names. We could also turn
> > > route_irq_to_guest into route_spi_to_guest and gic_route_irq_to_guest
> > > into gic_route_spi_to_guest.
> > 
> > Those functions will be used for MSI sooner or later. I would prefer to
> > keep the current name and add an ASSERT.
> 
> OK then, I can settle for that

Does that mean you are happy with the patch as is or were there other
changes you wanted? 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel