Re: [Xen-devel] [for-xen-4.5 v9 2/2] dpci: Replace tasklet with an softirq (v12)

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 03.11.14 at 20:14, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +/*
> + * Should only be called from hvm_do_IRQ_dpci. We use the

This statement together with the comment in pt_pirq_softirq_active()
is at least confusing: If the function is to be called in only one place,
there shouldn't be a second place where its use is being suggested.
Plus, a function with such required limited use would very likely better
not be a separate function at all.

> @@ -159,7 +279,16 @@ int pt_irq_create_bind(
>              {
>                  rc = msixtbl_pt_register(d, info, pt_irq_bind->u.msi.gtable);
>                  if ( unlikely(rc) )
> +                {
>                      pirq_guest_unbind(d, info);
> +                    /*
> +                     * Between 'pirq_guest_bind' and before 
> 'pirq_guest_unbind'
> +                     * an interrupt can be scheduled. No more of them are 
> going
> +                     * to be scheduled but we must deal with the one that is 
> in

s/ is / may be /?

> @@ -269,6 +398,10 @@ int pt_irq_create_bind(
>              {
>                  if ( pt_irq_need_timer(pirq_dpci->flags) )
>                      kill_timer(&pirq_dpci->timer);
> +                /*
> +                 * There is no path for __do_IRQ to schedule softirq as
> +                 * IRQ_GUEST is not set. As such we can reset 'dom' right 
> away.

"right away" suggests the alternative handling defers it in any way.
Maybe better "directly"?

Jan


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